Please read this and tell me what you think Stigma:It seems that society these days is quick to assign psychological labels to those that do not fit in. They are told they have ADD, OCD, homosexuality, bipolar disorder, or autism. Often, those with social difficulties self-diagnose without ever seeing a health care professional. Sometimes those so labeled receive tolerance and patience from others for their harmful, anti-social behaviors that they would otherwise never receive if they claimed to be normal. Other times those so labeled find their very legitimate observations and concerns rejected for being nothing more than manifestations of their addled brains. A busybody control freak and bully may excuse her behavior by claiming to suffer from OCD while at the same time a “normal” employee who finds it impossible to do his job when others keep moving supplies on him might be told to get over his OCD and stop complaining. Who gets labeled is often arbitrary and subject to confirmation bias. Those considered normal can have an “off day” that is quickly forgotten, but those considered abnormal have to carefully watch everything they do so as not to confirm what people already think of them. Once one has a reputation, there is usually nothing one can ever do to change it. These are my observations. My Story:In Dunbarton Elementary School (circa 1988-1991) I had absolutely no inkling whatsoever that I was not completely normal as perceived by my peers. I was popular and it was others that my friends made fun of. Then I moved. In North Londonderry Elementary School (circa 1991-1992) the other kids rejected me first, before I ever had the chance to do anything stupid. I was ruthlessly made fun of. I moved again. In Highland Goffes Falls Elementary School (circa 1992-1994) I was mostly shunned. From then on I was gradually more accepted, but never again really connected with anyone at school. So far my story is not unusual. Many people are picked on for being different, whether for a physical disability, an accent, dressing differently, wearing glasses, or even for being a twin. I understood the pecking order and that what constituted good fashion was based on circular reasoning. Those at the top set fashion so that anything they did became the new cool, while those at the bottom defined uncool no matter how well they copied those at the top. Since leaving school, I have heard the existence of this phenomenon corroborated by others. I have also heard from others that sometimes bullies pick on the uncool kids so that they will not be picked on by still higher bullies. The entire pecking order gives the schoolyard social cohesion and somebody has to be on the bottom. It doesn’t necessarily mean they are different, let alone that something is wrong with them. In my case, my peers seemed to resent my intelligence. In Dunbarton, kids were naturally curious and tried to learn as much as possible. In Londonderry, kids hated knowledge and acted dumber than they were in order to fit in (this has been corroborated by someone who went there at the same time I did). That I was socially isolated meant that it took longer for me to learn new slang and to learn how to behave my age. It was not because of anything different about me, but only because of the behaviors of others that I didn’t always know what was common knowledge. It amused kids to ask me trick questions so I would unknowingly answer with innuendos. They had incentive to keep me uninformed. In 1998, I began working at McDonald’s and this is where I quickly became popular again. Everyone else was like me and I had no inkling whatsoever that I was in any way less than perfectly normal. By the time I graduated high school in 2000, I was accepted as completely normal and my knowledge of slang and social norms had caught up with everyone else. I thought my trouble days were behind me forever. This is where things began to get weird. In 2006 I began working at The Saint Anselm College Coffee Shop. Right away, I was categorized and labeled as something I wasn’t. I was told I was a whiner, a complainer, argumentative, crabby, clumsy, insensitive, hyper-religious, anti-sexual, indecisive, long-winded, and more. Others told me that I often misunderstood them, yet in every incident I was able to show it was in fact they that had misunderstood me – including when they failed to understand that I already understood them perfectly. The nature of language is such that misunderstandings are inevitable, but there is a qualitative difference between my misunderstandings 1982-2006 and my misunderstandings 2007-present. In the past, misunderstandings were immediately recognized and cleared up. Whoever recognized first that there was a misunderstanding knew just what additional information was necessary to clarify. Since 2007, misunderstandings persist and there is no effort by anyone other than myself to reword things or ask questions. Other people simply repeat themselves louder and louder. It is the same whether I have misunderstood, or they have. It was soon after these difficulties began that my father first suggested I had Aspberger’s. His supposed evidence was simply that I had had social troubles most of my life and that it took me a while to learn the social norms. Soon, others corroborated his sentiments. I had a hard time swallowing this. I thought that my past troubles had already been adequately explained in social terms rather than psychological ones. I know I don’t always know all the slang about sex and drugs, but that is partly because for a while I had no friends my age and partly because my parents never had the money to pay for cable television and would not have allowed me to watch “those” types of shows anyways. It’s not because I’m neurologically different; I’ve simply had different experiences. If there was anything wrong with me, how was it that I got along so well with others 1982-1991 and 1998-2006? Even since 2007, I have not had the same problems everywhere as if the problems are with me. Instead, I have one set of problems with some people and another set of problems with other people. In any case, I didn’t believe I fit the symptoms profile very well at all. I’m not unusually sensitive to touch or sound. I know I am well within the normal range. If I have Aspberger’s syndrome, so does at least half the population. There were other problems with my father’s unofficial diagnosis, too. Many of my disputes with others center on a difference of philosophy. If I were to admit that these differences were nothing more than a neurophysiological abnormality on my part, this would allow others to dismiss my very legitimate grievances and observations. Should I turn my back on what I know to be the truth just to get along? A Matter Of Philosophy:People do not always get my jokes and I do not always get theirs, but this is not because I have Aspberger’s; it’s because many people are stupid. Whether there is enough information given or not to solve an equation without having to draw upon external sources is a matter of mathematical certainty. No form of thinking can ever give a single value for Y when the only information given is X+Y=67 and no form of thinking can ever fail to give a single value for Y when I explicitly tell you that Y equals only 25 and nothing else. In the same way, whether there is enough information given or not to understand a joke (or anything else for that matter) without having to draw on additional cultural knowledge is also a matter of mathematical certainty. That many people don’t get my jokes even after I explain them and I don’t get many jokes even after they have been explained only proves that many people are stupid, not that I think differently. People tell me that I miss details that others notice and that this is a symptom of Aspberger’s. While anyone can sometimes miss a detail that others see, I will at least as often pick up on details that others miss (this blog is an ongoing example). The truth is that everyone has different interests and they notice and remember those details that most interest them. Everyone is different. A marketer and a professional cook are going to notice different things at a restaurant. Of course, it would be a problem if someone missed something important to the basic essence of something, but what the basic essence is and what is and isn’t important are matters of philosophy. Because I am so well-read, I see the world differently than the average person and I pick up on different things. Is it now considered a brain disorder to be educated? People tell me that I am physically clumsy and socially awkward and that both of these are symptoms of Aspberger’s. I don’t believe I am or that I am even different, but isn’t gracefulness and awkwardness in the eye of the beholder anyway? Does there exist an objective way to measure it? We all have different tastes when it comes to beauty. We all have different philosophies of friendship and romance. Is one person’s opinion worth more than another’s? Most say no, but when it comes to my aesthetic values, I am told they are somehow wrong. I am told that valuing playtime and holding on to some aspects of childhood are signs of Aspberger’s. I am told that wanting a few close friends rather than many acquaintances is a symptom of Aspberger’s. I am told that having friends much younger or much older than me is a symptom of Aspberger’s. I am told that valuing creativity makes me weird. Even though I do not avoid eye contact any more than the average person, some people tell me I do and tell me that this is also a symptom of Aspberger’s. Even if that were true, what is wrong with that? My first crush avoided eye contact with everyone and I found it very cute. To suggest that such a thing is somehow undesirable I find extremely offensive for her sake. I am told that I do not understand analogy, metaphor, symbolism, allegory, humor, or irony and that these are also symptoms of Aspberger’s. I believe that not only do I understand these things, but that I am a master of them. I’m a writer! They are my passion! When I fail to understand someone’s analogies it is because they have delivered them poorly, do not understand well what it is they are trying to explain, or do not understand analogies. More often, it is others that do not understand my analogies, though I know them to be good. Is there an objective standard to settle these disputes or is it simply a matter of philosophy? I’ve also been accused of having only a few, narrow interests (another supposed symptom of Aspberger’s). I’ve never had much interest in sports, but I do enjoy math, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, history, and political science. In other words, I am interested in literally everything in the universe. How can I have narrow interests? I am told that science is a tiny part of the world and the subject of sports covers a wide array of things. There are many types of sports. What I consider one subject they consider several and what I consider several they consider one. Which one of us has narrower interests? Is there an objective taxonomy or is it all a matter of philosophy? Some of my disputes with others turn on disagreements over ethics and morality. Wanting to get along, I generally conform myself to the cultural norms, but some norms are in dispute, norms change all the time, and some norms need to be changed. Should I stop doing what I know is right just because others think it wrong? Should I start accepting it when others are rude to me just because they think it is right? Are all morals and ethics just manifestations of our different brains, or do we sense a real Platonic realm of absolute truth? For that matter, did Plato have Aspberger’s? I See More:Some misunderstandings are because I see more, not less, than the average person. Because I see more than the average person, I am fully aware that the cultural norms are in constant flux and there is much disagreement on them. Because others are too dull to understand this and only know of the tiny little world they live in, they assume that I do not know the norms. Eye contact protocols are a very good example of this. I am aware that different cultures and different venues have different standards. If I settle on only one norm standard and take sides, which group should I alienate? When taking a psychological evaluation or political survey, I can see that the questions are poorly worded so as to have multiple interpretations. In fact, it is a known phenomenon that political pollsters will ask questions a particular way in order to get the results they want to report. Sometimes when someone makes a statement, I have to ask questions to narrow down their meaning. Other people simply jump to conclusions without even seeing the other possibilities. This is one reason why the world is so screwed up. I see such miscommunication everywhere. Should I help to make things worse just to fit in? In conversation, I normally have enough context to know what sort of information someone is looking for that allows me to correctly interpret their questions. Surveys are different. Questions are completely out-of-the-blue. Which of these things is not like the other? Which of these things doesn’t belong?
Sometimes I hold back judgment on purpose. When people begin to get angry with me, I don’t like to make assumptions why they are angry. For one thing, this can prevent me from learning what the real problem is and I know from experience how infuriating it is not to be listened to. For another thing, I don’t want to make the problem worse by insulting their intelligence, assuming they are only upset because they have made a stupid assumption themselves. This is usually the only reason I can think of for their anger (and I often turn out to be right – though not always). I like to give people enough rope to hang themselves so they cannot blame me. I also prefer to think the best of others as long as possible. Unfortunately, because I do not show I instantly understand someone’s problem, this only makes them angrier and it makes people assume I have trouble understanding others. I have read that extreme fear or anger can disrupt our ability to connect with others and make us “temporarily autistic.” Since I am always the last person to get upset in any conflict, I have strong reason to believe that the problem lies not with me. I have noticed that the average neurotypical person is highly insensitive to the psychoemotional states of others, even when they sometimes have the same problems. Everyone is full of themselves. In contrast, I know people very well. I can put myself in their shoes. While I don’t believe I have any of the conditions myself, I believe I partly understand those with introversion, extroversion, Aspberger’s, autism, ADD, OCD, and bipolar disorder. I understand making sounds or movements to establish a sensory baseline and cancel extraneous signals. Everybody needs this to a small degree. Those with autism simply need to do it more. This phenomenon is what sensory deprivation tanks and acupuncture are based on. I understand that when others are angry it is not the time to confront them about it. I can tell when introverts are getting bored, annoyed, and fatigued with me, yet extreme extroverts seem to be oblivious to these clear signals. The average person cannot understand anyone even slightly different. This is the source of racism, xenophobia, and homophobia. This is why liberals and conservatives don’t get along. Should I become intolerant of others just to fit in? From time to time I will read an article or book about Aspberger’s, communication, or emotional intelligence and I will always be struck at how well I am already following the author’s advice far better than anyone I have ever met. I have by far the highest emotional intelligence of anyone I know. I am absolutely certain of this. If you fail to see this, that only means you are too emotionally unintelligent to recognize it. That’s all there is to it. I have said before that Aspberger’s is the new drapetomania. In nineteenth century America, it was said that some slaves had an irrational compulsion to run away. Rather than recognize that slaves were human beings with a common human yearning for freedom that anyone in their place would feel, they were said to have a psychological condition needing treatment called drapetomania. In the same way, much of what is said to be Aspberger’s is just the manifestation of healthy individuals trying to adjust to a sick society. Us And Them:My experience compelled me to study up more on what Aspberger’s was. It has many associated traits. Having few interests, being picky, and having sensitivity to touch are all supposed symptoms, but why were these attributes grouped together to represent what it means to have Aspberger’s? Why include physical clumsiness, avoiding eye contact, and the inability to learn and follow the norms? Why not define another disorder to include those very graceful and not at all picky, but still avoiding eye contact? What would those people have? The symptoms of Aspberger’s are not related to each other!
Basketball players tend to be taller than average, faster than average, and more coordinated than average. This makes them stand out as different – or at least it would if people paid attention to such things they way they do to symptoms of Aspberger’s syndrome. Why is Jordanitus not an equally valid neurophysiological disorder? For that matter, why not group together first language, hair color, and body-mass index? Everyone is different in some way. There are so many thousands of attributes that people have that to be within the normal range on each and every one of them is itself abnormal. It is abnormal to be normal! Calling someone abnormal says more about us and which attributes we consider important than it does about those we label. What attributes must someone deviate in to be considered abnormal? Who stands out more in a group of Christian octogenarians? The only Jew or the only teenager? Who stands out more in a group of Arab women? The only Irish woman or the only male? It is all arbitrary! I firmly believe that Aspberger’s syndrome is a completely arbitrary, gerrymandered designation. No one has Aspberger’s syndrome because Aspberger’s syndrome does not exist. Those are my thoughts on the subject. I hope it helps more people than it hurts. Obviously there are some people who have some sort of problem and need help, but I don’t believe that calling it Aspberger’s makes sense. At least this is the way I see it. Tell me what you think and if you have had any similar experiences with labeling. What do people say about you?
0 Comments
When I grew up, stalking was synonymous with surveillance with harmful intent. If you observe someone for a while to know when they will be out of the house so you can burglarize it, you are stalking. If you observe someone for a while to know when they will be home alone so you can kill or rape them, you are stalking. Stalkers never revealed themselves on purpose; they remained hidden. Someone who walks right up to your front door and knocks is not a stalker. Today, those who call someone repeatedly without getting a response are said to be stalkers – even when their identity and location are known to the recipient. Today, I hear people reinterpreting as pro-stalking classic love songs that used to be universally understood as romantic. Perfectly healthy, normal observation of those we admire is now considered creepy.
There is even a phenomenon known as social-media-stalking. This is when people read your posts on social media to learn things about you – even if they have no harmful intent. This is absurd. Why else would anybody post something other than wanting it read? Social media began as a way to meet new people online you had never met in real life and so that one could gain a following with little advertising money. With twenty-first century technology, we are all potential celebrities should we want to be. Am I stalking celebrities when I read their magazine interviews and watch their television shows? Why should I be the only one disallowed from enjoying their publications just because they don’t want to hear from me? Only a complete fool expects that what they post publicly will not be seen. I even spoke with a lady once about something she had posted on Facebook and she thought it was creepy that I had read it – even though we worked together, talked about the subject all the time, and I was already Facebook friends with her boyfriend!!! The silliness!!! I look up people online all the time. Sometimes this is to get in contact with them. I have been in situations where I just wasn’t sure whether my messages were even getting through. This has required me to research my target’s acquaintances to find other ways of getting in contact. I never meant any harm and I wasn’t hiding myself. We were friends. In the years before cell phones were ubiquitous, I even looked up old classmates in the phone book of all places. Was this stalking? If it is so bad to look up information on people, why do phone books exist? I have even heard it suggested that keeping pictures of someone is stalking, but who doesn’t keep pictures of their kids or their parents? Even if they don’t speak to you anymore? Even if they are dead? What if it is all you have left to remember them by? It is no different if you were “merely” friends or romantic partners. If you ever truly love someone it is never over even when it is over. Because you love them you let them go, but that doesn’t mean you ever stop caring. If you don’t understand this, you have never really loved. If you love someone, you like to keep updated on what they are doing with their lives. If they will not tell you themselves, there is nothing wrong with gleaning the information from other (legal) sources. These are dangerous times for all of us when the “victim” alone is able to decide whether they are being stalked or not. Related to this issue is the phenomenon of harassment. Often, this is in the eye of the beholder. I have been told by more than one person that if one doesn’t receive an answer after the first phone call, then one must never ever ever ever make a second phone call. Anything beyond this is harassment. This seems to be an unreasonably extreme position. What is the harm in contact? Isn’t that just free speech? The recipient is always free to ignore. What is one to do if they never receive confirmation that their message was received? I’m not saying that one is ever obligated to respond to unsolicited contact, but so long as they do not, the sender is certainly under no obligation to stop. If I am wrong on this, there are quite a few credit card companies that should be in big trouble right now. I hate to bother people, and traditionally when someone didn’t return my first call I gave up on them, figuring that we were never really friends. In recent years I have been told by some of these people that they have busy, disorganized lives, bad memories, and a tendency to lose contact information. They tell me I have to keep calling. I have also been given advice when applying for jobs to keep calling until I get an answer one way or the other. The bible tells us to keep on asking and we will receive. Modern popular wisdom tells us that if at first we don’t succeed to try again. I have been told long after the fact when it was too late that a woman used to like me, but I had given up asking her out because she had repeatedly told me she was busy. I believed she wasn’t interested. I can take a hint, but in this case apparently she really was busy. At what point should one give up? Does one person’s right to be left alone always trump another person’s right to free speech? An individual is never compelled to speak or respond, but how can they compel others to shut up? Obviously there are limits. Speech that is intimidating, threatening, or excessively disruptive must be stopped, but no sane person can legitimately consider a passive written letter mailed every other month a form of harassment – even if they have been told to stop. When you have long known someone and in a moment of anger they tell you to leave them alone, but you have reason to think it was just a bad time to talk, why not call them again the next day when they have had a chance to cool down? Is it really wrong to call and apologize? Even when it is clear that it is finally time to say goodbye for good, is it really wrong to make one last call to give your parting message? I have read of several cases of one member of a romantic relationship (usually the woman) inexplicably and suddenly breaking off all contact with the other. What kind of person does that to another human being? What kind of person does that to those who care about them? In this situation, who is the real victim? Having one’s heart ripped out can make anyone a little crazy. You really do have to be some special type of cruel to side against those that just want to talk. In this situation it is only natural to worry about them and call to make sure they are okay. In fact, it sounds to me like the right thing to do. Aren’t humans psychobiologically designed to become emotionally attached? This is how love is supposed to work. What if they are in danger? I would hope someone would check up on me if I were in trouble. If anyone has a problem, it is obviously the one refusing to talk, not the one reaching out, yet over and over the psychiatric establishment tells us it is the caller with the problem! Sometimes one person may be suicidal or addicted to drugs and the other is only trying to help. Should they just give up or keep reaching out? What if you know they have no one else and the only reason they push you away is because they can’t trust anybody? You probably shouldn’t force decisions on them, but isn’t the loving thing to keep on inviting? God never gave up on humanity, but sent prophet after prophet – who were told to keep preaching even after being ridiculed, beaten, and imprisoned – before finally sending Jesus. He kept “calling” for thousands of years. In contrast, human society is too quick to give up on people. Our society shuts so many people out. We block those on social media that say something we don’t like. We cocoon ourselves in our little, tiny worlds with spam filters and we block specific phone numbers. Most people these days are incapable of dialogue or reasoned debate and simply shut down those they disagree with. This allows them to remain ignorant as they continue to hurt themselves and all those around them. We harass the homeless for only trying to make a living by asking for change and doing nothing to harm anyone. Do they not even have a right to live? It is not only unfair to them, but unfair to those who would help them if they knew they needed help. Why refuse to listen? Mere words can hurt nobody. You can always refuse to give. We regulate solicitation of street vendors to the point that in some places it is illegal. How can anyone be sure they don’t want what is being sold? For all they know it could change their lives. How are new companies supposed to get started before they have the funds for traditional advertising? How is anyone supposed to make a living? It used to be a perfectly legitimate job to go door-to-door selling vacuum cleaners or cookies. What happened? Whatever happened to freedom of speech? One thing I’ve observed in life is that many people are too quick to give up on others. In marriage, they promise to cherish until death, but then go on to get divorced or have affairs. In politics, they are quicker to attack an opponent’s character than to explain why they believe the way they do. I have heard Christians tell me that atheists have willingly turned against God and been given over to a depraved mind, making them unreachable. They tell me not to answer a fool in his folly and not to cast my pearls before swine. The thing is, I used to be an atheist and I was reached because I knew some Christians who never gave up on me. If they had followed the popular advice, I might still be an atheist. Besides, the bible also says to always answer a fool in his folly lest he be wise in his own estimation. There is a lot of advice out there that passes for wisdom but I find questionable.
When it comes to lost friends and lovers, we are told not to hold on to the past and find new friends and lovers to replace them with. While sometimes people return to old things because they haven’t let go of the past, other times people return to old things to create a new future with them. We are told that anything we set free will come back to us if it was ever truly ours, but if your strategy is to wait to see if they come back, what happens if they also have the same strategy? We are told not to move mountains for people that wouldn’t raise a finger for us. This is a terrible idea. Every once in a while, we all need somebody to go out of their way for us, just so we know it’s more than a relationship of convenience. The corollary to this is that every once in a while, we need to go out of our way for others – especially when they don't deserve it. If I always gave up on people who gave up on me, I'd soon have no one. Everyone lets me down sometimes. If everyone only cared about those that cared about them, how would caring ever begin? Sometimes when people hurt me, I give up on them, and then sometimes people hurt me in a way that is so ridiculous and over the top that I realize just how messed up they are and then all I want to do is help them. Why take revenge on those who are already miserable? We are told that negativity and pessimism is contagious and we should stay away from toxic people, but everyone is negative sometimes – usually with good reason. It is better to hang out with negative people than to hang out with zero people. It is not good for a man to be alone. We are told to spend time with those wiser than ourselves in order for their wisdom to rub off on us. It is fine to want to hang out with those wiser than yourself, but if they follow the same advice they will not hang out with you. In the realm of politics we seem especially prone to giving up on each other, but we might agree on more than you think. To learn more, check out my book The Nutcase Across The Street. Points to ponder: “If a shepherd has one hundred sheep, and one wanders away and is lost, what will he do? Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others and go out into the hills to search for the lost one? And if he finds it, he will surely rejoice over it more than over the ninety-nine that didn’t wander away! In the same way, it is not my heavenly Father’s will that even one of these little ones should perish. “If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. If that person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. If the church decides you are right, but the other person won’t accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.” – Matthew 18:12-17 “Those who reject other Christians are wandering in spiritual darkness and don’t know where they are going, for the darkness has made them blind.” – 1st John 2:11 “So if you are standing before the altar in the Temple, offering a sacrifice to God, and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there beside the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.” – Matthew 5:23-24 “If I warn the wicked, saying, ‘you are under the penalty of death,’ but you fail to deliver the warning, they will die in their sins. And I will hold you responsible, demanding your blood for theirs.” – Ezekiel 3:18 Not only are people different, they are on different paths of growth. Many do not understand this and are quick to judge. It has happened before that I have been in situations that caused me to question my old habits, yet people who do not know my past speak to me as if I am slow to learn things that they learned long ago. They tell me that if I just follow their advice, then everything will work out, but my old habits were identical to their advice and after many years of failure led to the present situations. They do not listen.
Some people were impulsive as youths and now need to learn patience and prudence. Others were fearfully hesitant and now need to learn to take risks. Both think they have finally “seen the light” and teach everyone around them not to repeat the mistakes that they made. When these two types of people meet each other it is the source of a lot of friction. Some people have always accepted what they could not change and now need to learn how to take a stand for once. Others have always changed what they could not accept and now need to learn how to settle down, recognize their limits, and live at peace. Neither are good at finding the balance between the two, yet try to tell others how to live. Some people have always been dependent on others for their happiness and now need to learn to be strong alone and not worry what others think. They have strived to please others but have never really been happy. Others have always done as they pleased and now realize that our deepest need as people is to connect with and serve others. They have always lived to please themselves but now find they have no one to share life with. The two groups are always trying to give each other advice not to follow in their footsteps. Every situation is different, every person is different, and every path is different. What path are you on? The real God has freed us from religion! So why do people rush back into it? I have heard that in India Muslims and Hindus fight over holy sites where both have had temples in the past. Why don’t they just build new temples elsewhere? Why are they so hung up on places and things? The God I know is everywhere and I need no special place to find him/her/it. I need no special artifact to connect with the divine because the God I know needs nothing to connect with me. No place or thing is so sacred that it justifies harming another person over it. The human body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, made in the image of God, yet we destroy the bodies of those who get in our way.
Muslims and Jews fight over holy places in Israel. Muslims freak out if you burn your own copy of the Koran or draw a picture of Mohammed – in another country! Americans freak out if you burn your own copy of the American flag. Americans march in protest when Muslims propose to add an addition to a mosque that happens to be near the site of the former world trade towers, a place that is now seen as almost sacred. People have been worshipping mere things since prehistoric times. The prophet Isaiah had a few things to say about this: “How foolish are those that manufacture idols to be their gods. These highly valued objects are really worthless. They themselves are witnesses that this is so, for their idols neither see nor know. No wonder those who worship them are put to shame. Who but a fool would make his own god – an idol that cannot help him one bit! All who worship idols will stand before the Lord in shame, along with all these craftsmen – mere humans – who claim they can make a god. Together they will stand in terror and shame. “The blacksmith stands at his forge to make a sharp tool, pounding and shaping it with all his might. His work makes him hungry and thirsty, weak and faint. Then the wood-carver measures and marks out a block of wood, takes the tool, and carves the figure of a man. Now he has a wonderful idol that cannot even move from where it is placed! He cuts down cedars; he selects the cypress and the oak; he plants the cedar in the forest to be nourished by the rain. And after his care, he uses part of the wood to make a fire to warm himself and bake his bread. Then – yes, it’s true – he takes the rest of it and makes himself a god for people to worship! He makes an idol and bows down and praises it! He burns part of the tree to roast his meat and to keep himself warm. Then he takes what’s left and makes his god: a carved idol! He falls down in front of it, worshiping and praying to it. ‘Rescue me!’ he says. ‘You are my god.’ “Such stupidity and ignorance! Their eyes are closed, and they cannot see. Their minds are shut, and they cannot think. The person who made the idol never stops to reflect, ‘Why, it’s just a block of wood! I burned half of it for heat and used it to bake my bread and roast my meat. How can the rest of it be a god? Should I bow down to worship a chunk of wood?’ The poor, deluded fool feeds on ashes. He is trusting something that can give him no help at all. Yet he cannot bring himself to ask, ‘Is this thing, this idol that I’m holding in my hand, a lie?’” – Isaiah 44:9-20 Unfortunately, not even Christians are immune to superstition and idolatry. Some think it wrong to leave a bible on the floor or underneath other books. Don’t they realize that relative to those standing on the opposite side of the planet, those other books are underneath the bible? Space has no preferred direction. Don’t they realize it’s just a pile of paper anyways, made from “just a block of wood,” the words meaningless to those who don’t read the language it is printed in? The message may be important, but a bible is just one copy. It can be delivered verbally, on a CD, or on a website through a computer. Do they also deserve the same reverence? Does the computer suddenly lose this special reverence if the internet goes down and it can’t access the website the message is on? You can never lose access to the real God. You don’t need to be in church or go through a priest. You don’t even need to remember to pray or say the right words. The Holy Spirit intercedes for us. God watches out for you anywhere you might go. He loves you too much to let out of his sight. You don’t need anything else. God is in control. You can trust him to teach you right from wrong and grant you wisdom. It may take time, since we sometimes don’t listen and some lessons can only be taught through experience, but God loves you and will see you through. It would be a mistake to unquestioningly rely instead on a book written by mere humans, thinking there was nothing more to learn. That would be idolatry. I believe God speaks through the bible, but I also believe he speaks through nature, our experiences, prayer, logic, and the conscience, all of which I have less chance of misunderstanding. Should I violate my God-given conscience and logic itself just to adhere to what other humans think? Even if their writings did later become canonized (by other humans) into the bible?
How is one to know the bible is inerrant? We certainly aren’t born knowing. Babies don’t even know that writing exists. To determine the bible’s accuracy, we can only compare it to other things we know to be accurate. How do we know these other things are accurate? It all comes down to our innate reason and common sense arising from experience. So what happens when the bible tells us something that conflicts with our reason? The bible tells us not to lean on our own understanding and that no scripture is of private interpretation, but what exactly do those verses mean? Doesn’t it require understanding and interpretation to know the meaning? I am not going to get bogged down in an argument over correct interpretations or translations of any particular verse. I’m not a mind reader, nor am I an expert on ancient Palestine. I just find it sad that some people let their minds be imprisoned by one book when I know that God invites us to be free. There is much truth that can never be learned from a book. Is the bible inerrant? It really doesn’t matter if it is or not. There is so much meaning that could have been lost in translation, and so much more meaning that could be lost in our personal interpretation of it, that the bible we know is not the same as the bible known by its authors. Those that rely on professional clergy to interpret for them only shift the responsibility onto themselves to interpret what those professionals are actually saying. It adds yet another step for things to go wrong. It would be far more pragmatic to pray for God to directly guide us or to interpret scripture for us. God is always inerrant. Points to ponder: “And I suppose that if all the other things Jesus did were written down, the whole world could not contain the books.” – John 21:25 “Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now.” – First Corinthians 13:12 Who is defiant? The one who does not follow the orders he is given? Or the one who continues to give me orders even after I warn him not to tell me what to do?
Who is a greater threat to peace? The one who openly considers replacing the government to better serve all people? Or the institution whose job description includes executing prisoners and fighting wars? What is authority? Police are authorities, but only within the context of their function as agents of the state. They must follow the orders of superiors. When orders conflict, one must always obey the higher authority. The chief executive is an authority, but he/she is still bound by the laws of the legislature and the rulings of the judiciary. When orders conflict, one must always obey the higher authority. The government as a whole is an authority, but it is defined and organized in accordance with the constitution. When orders conflict, one must always obey the higher authority. Authority is relative. The constitution is an authority – but according to whom? The consent of the governed? A plurality, a majority, or a supermajority of them? What gives my neighbors the right to tell me how to live my life? Even a majority of my neighbors? Even if their decision is unanimous? Can anyone claim to be an authority? Can I suddenly claim to be king and declare all employees of the current government to be pretenders, traitors, or even delusional to believe they have any authority whatsoever? How could an average citizen decide between us who was right? Who gives the average citizen any authority to decide such a thing for themselves? If a robber claims authority over me and orders me to deliver my goods, is it treason for me to refuse? If the robber happens to be armed and willing to use those arms, it might be prudent to obey – but does that make it right? Does might make right? What if the robber isn’t armed? What if an even more heavily armed robber is also expecting me to deliver my goods? Who do I deliver to first? If there is a civil war with both sides claiming to be the rightful government, which side should I be loyal to? If the government is overthrown by another, should I remain loyal to the old government or immediately dump them for the new one? What should be done with those citizens switching their loyalties too late or too soon? How can it be wrong to oppose the government if you are going to replace it with a new government that will also be wrong to oppose? These are the issues that get me into trouble more than any other. I used to work at a place where one manager would tell me one thing and another manager would tell me another. I would appeal to the authority of the uppermost management, but they were rarely around. They appealed to poorly written regulations that they interpreted one way and I interpreted another. I appealed to those who wrote the regulations. In any case I considered the company as a whole to have no authority on these matters anyways. I saw myself as a contractor hired to complete a job. If my final work displeased them in some way, they were of course free to discontinue my employment, but I understood that the details of how I accomplished the job were absolutely none of their business. They understood our relationship differently, believing that at their company they had the absolute right to dictate whatever procedural policies they chose and if I didn’t like it I could go elsewhere. Who was right? It is obvious to me that authority only exists if we believe in it. If I give an order to arrest someone, nobody listens to me because nobody believes that I have the authority to make such an order. However, if the king were to give such an order, people would obey. If nobody listened to the king, he would be as impotent as I and technically no longer a king. It is not any difference on our part but only who others have chosen to listen to that makes us different. Authority is an illusion. I’m not just trying to stir up trouble. I am literally unaware of any concept of authority other than the one I just laid out. No one has ever been able to explain it to me any better. It isn’t my fault if I was born without knowing and nobody has ever educated me. The burden of proof is on those making a claim. We are held innocent until proven guilty and I consider all men created equal until given reason to think otherwise. You telling me that you have the authority to declare your authority is not a reason. I could do the same (and have). As far as I know, government is by definition a criminal enterprise. It is a thief by taxation and a murderer by execution. I know that if nobody pays taxes the government will not have the funds to keep us safe from even worse governments, but that doesn’t make it any less theft. I know that government is often necessary – but that makes it no less evil. This is not to say that I don’t support government. Just as the United States allied itself with the “evil empire” Soviet Union to defeat the NAZIs, I ally myself with the current government to defeat Islamic terrorists and common thugs. There is nothing wrong with paying your taxes or even serving as a government employee. We need more good people in government to keep it from becoming too bad. I support our soldiers. Anarchy doesn’t work. All I’m saying is that the reasons to support government are practical, not moral. Of course, if the current government were ever to become more destructive than the criminal elements it holds in check, the practical thing would be to switch sides. This would certainly be considered treason, but in that situation doesn’t it make more sense to call the government employees traitors? If it is treason to fight with government traitors, isn’t it equally treasonous for a government to fight actual traitors? Treason is also relative. So what am I to make of these verses? “For the Lord’s sake, accept all authority – the king as head of state…You who are slaves must accept the authority of your masters. Do whatever they tell you – not only if they are kind and reasonable, but even if they are harsh.” – 1st Peter 2:13&18 “Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.” – Romans 13:1&2 “Remind your people to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good.” – Titus 3:1 I have no idea how to even apply these. It isn’t that they are wrong or that I dislike the implications; I simply find them nonsensical. I don’t understand them. Submit to whose authority? Government is the use of force. A government with no way to protect itself from other governments (foreign or domestic) cannot long exist. A government without a military or police force will not last long before being replaced by a government with both. Government may also pick up your trash and supply you with water, but not doing these things makes it no less of a government. Government is not just the collective expression of the people. It can be, and perhaps it should be, but a dictatorship is no less of a government.
Government is violent. This is true even when the proscribed punishments for breaking its laws are non-violent. The authorities may fine you, but refuse to pay the fine and they will order you to court. Refuse to show up, and the sheriff will bring you in. Refuse to cooperate with the sheriff, and then the inherent violence of government will show. This subtle threat exists behind every law. If it did not, there would be no incentive to follow the laws, and the only laws that would be followed would be those the people were going to follow anyways even if there were no law. This is what most people forget when they call for new legislation: They are endorsing violence against their fellow citizens. They threaten their neighbors in order to get them to obey. Sometimes this is both justified and necessary when our neighbors are destructive, but most people never stop to ask themselves if the tradeoff is worth it. Which is worse? That some people ride without seatbelts or that we make people buckle up at gunpoint? That some people drink too much soda or that officers threaten to shut down businesses that sell it in cups larger than sixteen ounces? That someone might ignite a piece of cloth to make a point or that the state kidnaps and imprisons them for burning the flag? That some people waste time getting high or that we drag stoners into jail so they can waste time there? Does it really cost society so much to allow drug use that we are justified in criminalizing it? There are always tradeoffs. Remember this. Exploring is tough. You might come home covered in sweat, mud, bug bites, sunburn, bramble scratches, and more. That means you’re doing it right. That means you accomplished something. You found out what was out there and you survived to tell the tale. It’s all part of the adventure! Exertion means you will truly appreciate your rest later. Sore feet make food taste better. Hot sun makes even plain water taste amazing. Injuries are a badge of bravery and prowess. I wear them proudly. Not much bothers me. Still, there are steps you can take to minimize your hardship.
Some Advice about Sunlight: I have found that no matter how well I think I have applied lotion sunscreen, there are always oddly-shaped spots that are missed. I have avoided this problem by using spray-on sunscreen. That always seems to work well. Some Advice about Mosquitoes: I have yet to find a fly repellent that works well for more than ten minutes. The worst brand I have ever worn was Bullfrog. It doesn’t seem to work at all. Off is much better. Unfortunately, bug spray dries out my skin, smells bad, and is an absolute pain to carry with me. The weight of the liquid swings back and forth in my pockets, smashing into and chafing my leg, slowly pulling my pants down. On long trips when I carry sunscreen, bug spray, and drinking water, it is just too much. I could always bring a backpack, but those only make my back sweat and slow me down. It would be worth it if they actually worked to keep the flies away, but I find that even when it keeps the flies from biting, it does not keep them from landing. They climb in my eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, making it hard to breathe or see where I’m going. I have to wave my arms so much that I scare all the other animals away. Sometimes I can outrun flies, but it doesn’t take them long to find me again. Some Advice about Horseflies: It seems that they have territories no more than 300 feet wide. If you can get past the edge of a fly’s territory, it will stop following you, though chances are that you will be walking into the territory of the next. Some Advice about Bees and Wasps: It is absolutely untrue that they will not bother you if you do not bother them. On more than one occasion I have been walking along minding my own business when one of them flew out of nowhere at top speed, stung me, and then flew away before I could have my revenge. Pigs, Raccoons, Skunks, and Snakes: Most animals will not mess with you and want nothing more than to put as much distance between you and them as possible. Just give them some space and you should be fine. Understand that snakes that open their mouths and turtles that growl are not in the mood to be pet. There are always rare exceptions, though. I once met an alligator still young enough to weigh less than a third what I weighed, yet that did not stop it from climbing the bank and approaching me. Humans: Humans are insidiously dangerous creatures. You can escape back home unharmed only to find out later that you are being sued or charged with some crime. They will pretend to be friends for years, only to betray you at the worst possible moment and often have the audacity to blame you for it. They will steal not only your supplies, but use legal documents to drive you from your territory, and put up fences so you cannot return. They can rape or torture you for the fun of it, or they can kill you in the name of religion. They can injure you from unfathomable distances while you are blissfully unaware of their presence. The best thing to do upon encountering humans is to shoot on sight, but make sure they are really dead before you run away or else they will track you. Stay safe out there! “And if another Christian is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died.” – Romans 14:15
“Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble.” – Romans 14:21 “We may know that these things make no difference, but we cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves. We must be considerate of the doubts and fears of those who think these things are wrong.” – Romans 15:1 I’ve always struggled with these verses. On the one hand, I resent being told how to live. The restrictions some people place on their lives might work for them but would be inconvenient in the extreme for me. I know that I have freedom in Jesus and that most of the habits people see as sinful are actually harmless. Why should I bend to serve their will? Who are they to tell me what to do? On the other hand, love requires sacrifice and I certainly don’t want to be one of those that give people an excuse for not connecting with God. Insisting on living the way I want according to my desires is selfish. There is no greater joy than seeing those you love grow spiritually; I would hate to disrupt that just for some fleeting pleasure. On the other-other hand, isn’t the most loving thing I can do to be an example of how others could live if only they would embrace freedom? Shouldn’t we try to raise people up rather than stoop to their level? Shouldn’t we stand in solidarity with others who also live freely and take a stand against judgmental attitudes? It seems that true love compels me to engage with people, inviting them into a better life. One could argue that the verses only apply when we are directly in another’s presence and are not meant to apply to the privacy of our own home. The problem is that most of our life happens outside the home. If we share life with others, they are going to become familiar with our lifestyles. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. With social media especially, we post all about our meals, adventures, business operations, and meetups with our friends both Christian and non-Christian. Considering that there exist people out there somewhere against consuming pork, shellfish, beef, meat of any kind, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, gambling, reading or writing fiction about witches, working on Sunday, wearing short skirts, tattoos, and supporting the “wrong” presidential candidates and it becomes impossible to post much of anything. There are those that think capitalism is wrong and those that think communism is wrong. How are we supposed to live, then? It’s impossible to please everybody. Did Jesus die to rescue us from sin only for us to tiptoe around it the rest of our lives? I would rather be a pleaser of God than a pleaser of men (Galatians 1:10). Jesus did not refrain from correcting others. He once told people it was not what entered a man that defiled him, but what came out of him. Another time, he basically argued it wasn’t wrong to work on the Sabbath. If Jesus argued for freedom, why can’t I? In a small way, that is what this blog is about: showing people a better way to live. I shine a spotlight on God’s creation to give him glory. This becomes hard to do when people consider some elements of his creation unworthy. Jesus came to bring life and abundance of life. This is what I want for you. I want to see you be free and expand your world. Do you really want to miss out on reading a beautiful story of good triumphing over evil just because it mentions witchcraft? Do you want to spend the rest of your life cringing when you hear a swear word or see a woman in a bikini? Bacon is delicious. Try it. If you don’t like the taste, that’s fine. If you avoid it for health reasons, that’s fine. If you avoid it temporarily as a sort of ritual that reminds you to focus on God and this helps you connect, that’s fine. There is nothing wrong with fasting for lent. There is nothing wrong with giving God a gesture of appreciation once in a while. Worship God in a way that works best for you. Just don’t avoid it because you think it would be a sin to eat or you think abstaining will keep you in God’s favor. That plays right into sin’s hands. God already favors you. I suspect these verses have either been misinterpreted or mistranslated. A walk through the woods is never just a walk through the woods unless you let it be that way. How can you find interesting things? Here are some tips:
I never want to tell other people how to live, but I’ve had some ideas for a long time I thought deserved to be heard and thought through. Tell me what you think.
Everyone has a psychological need to express themselves when experiencing surprise, pain, anger, or frustration. Often, the words “augh” or “ouch” suffice, but more extreme situations can call for harsher words. Culture decides what words these will be. Unfortunately, there are those that will not allow others to vent. Granted, there are those who drop the F-bomb in every other sentence. When this happens, the word begins to lose all meaning and no longer functions to express much of anything, but when used sparingly it can be quite useful. Swearing can get you into trouble. On television, it can get you fired or fined. In school, it can get you detention. At home, it can get you spanked or worse. In general, it gets you put down and called a bad influence. Swearing must be an awfully harmful thing in order to justify treating people this way, right? What’s wrong with it? No one has ever been able to explain it to me. Are some subjects simply too offensive to discuss? Certainly there is a time and place to discuss one’s bowel movements and the dinner table is not one of them, but society is very inconsistent in these standards. Discussing BMs might be frowned upon, but it doesn’t necessarily get you into trouble. Why is it that it is perfectly permissible to use the words pooh, poop, scat, feces, caacaa, manure, excrement, droppings, doodoo, and crap, yet not permissible to say shit? The meaning is exactly the same! If it were the meaning of the word that was the problem, this would not be. Of course, as often as not “shit” is used not to refer to fecal matter, but to express surprise and pain, such as when you hammer your thumb. Used this way, it is no different in meaning than saying “ouch.” If ouch is not a bad word, why is shit? Is it never okay to express displeasure with people? Sometimes it is considered permissible to be mean. When another is being a jerk, it’s usually acceptable to call them a jerk. Why is it unacceptable to call them an ass or a bitch? When another is being a liar, it’s usually acceptable to call out their lies. Why is it unacceptable to call out their bullshit? If a bully is just going around calling people names that don’t deserve it, the problem is the bully, not the names he uses. Are some combinations of sounds inherently offensive? Certainly running fingernails along a chalkboard is, but what about the word “damn?” Repeating this word in school can get you sent to the principal, yet its sound is identical to the word “dam,” meaning a structure to block the flow of liquid. Why is it permissible to say dam but not damn? If it were the sound that was the problem, this would not be. Why is bitch okay to use when referring to canines but not humans? Why is faggot okay to use when referring to cigarettes but not humans? It has nothing to do with the sound at all, does it? I used to use the expression of surprise “jeezum crow.” Then I was told that I was really referring to Jesus Christ, making this an example of using the lord’s name in vain, and therefore offensive. It had never occurred to me that there might be a connection. How can anybody mean something other than what they actually mean? Especially when they are unaware of it? Who decides what the “real” meanings of expressions are anyway? Holy cow! When you say “gosh darn it,” are you really saying “God damn it?” Of course not! If you call someone a pussy, are you really calling them a vagina? Is vagina a bad word now? How do you know you aren’t really calling them a cat? Is cat a bad word now? If pussy can refer to both cats and vaginas, why can’t it also refer to wimps? Is wimp a bad word now? If you call someone an ass, are you really calling them a bottom? Is bottom a bad word now? How do you know you aren’t really calling them a donkey? Is donkey a bad word now? If ass can refer to both bottoms and donkeys, why can’t it also refer to jerks? Is jerk a bad word now? If you tell someone they’re screwed, are you really telling them they have lost their virginity? Is that bad to say? How do you know you aren’t really saying they are being slowly impaled by a rotating object (like an actual screw)? If being screwed can refer to both sex and handiwork, why can’t it also refer to being in some sort of hopeless trouble? Is trouble a bad word now? What does it really mean to tell someone they are fucked? I once met a woman who actually tried to explain to me that “get your poop in a group” was wrong to say because it really meant “get your shit together.” What the heck? People tend to get really hung up on symbology without ever understanding the underlying meaning and this phenomenon extends well beyond swearing. I was actually told by a lady once that those who celebrate Christmas on December 25th are “really” worshipping the sun god because the date was set by the early church to compete with a pagan holiday around the same time. How is it possible for one to worship the sun god if they don’t believe in his existence and are completely unaware that historians don’t know for sure what time of year Jesus was born? If the rest of society celebrates Christmas on December 25th, and you don’t know any better than they do what the real date should be, isn’t the sensible thing to celebrate along with everyone else? I have also been told by more than one person that scientists have proven that the Earth circles the sun instead of the other way around, not understanding even after I have explained it that motion is relative. Modern scientists use the sun-centric model because it is mathematically simpler, not because it is more accurate. People are so easily offended. Tell one person merry Christmas and they will assume you are trying to proselytize them. Tell the next person in line happy holidays instead and they will assume you are part of a war against Christmas. Protest government policies that are distressing the country by holding a flag upside down (a sign of distress) and people assume you are anti-American. Proudly adopt America as your own by wearing clothing bearing the stars and stripes and people think it is in poor taste to touch the flag with your body. Wave the confederate flag around to celebrate your heritage and then watch people completely lose their minds. How does this happen? Could it be that teaching our kids young that some words and symbols are always bad – rather than having the potential to be used for good or harm like most words – creates in them a mindset allowing such strange ideas to flourish later in life? At the very least I think they would grow up as very confused people. Could regulating speech be more dangerous than the speech itself? Do you let your kids swear? Finding Adventure Close To Home:
Adventure can be found anywhere at any time. You do not have to go far looking for it. You do not have to be lucky enough for it to happen to you. You simply have to recognize that you are already surrounded by adventure. Even in your neighborhood, there are some places you have never gone. I used to take long walks from my house and cut behind businesses and walk along the railroad tracks. I found snakes, deer, turtles, and found the largest cache of blackberries I had ever seen in my life (and still to this day). This was where I saw for the first time a dragonfly catch a meal in flight. Finding Joy In Everyday Life: Even at work or around the home there are situations that have never happened before. There are little mysteries and challenges to be overcome. These can be adventures too. Not everyone is capable of this mindset. Some are depressed and are physically incapable of adventure even when it is pointed out to them. I’ve been there and I know there is nothing to say to make you feel better. Just know that it doesn’t last. Others simply lack the skills because no one has shown them where and how to look. That is what I hope to do on this blog: prove by example that adventure can be found anywhere and you don’t have to go far from home to find it. It just takes a little practice. Here are some tips:
What is the next adventure you will go on? I never want to tell other people how to live, but I’ve had some ideas for a long time I thought deserved to be heard and thought through. Tell me what you think.
We live in an oversexualized culture and sometimes I get tired of it. I’m tired of coworkers trying to make innuendos out of my innocent words while I’m trying to tell them something important. I’m tired of people giggling when I talk about the biology of invertebrates (apparently penis-fencing hermaphroditic flatworms are funny). I’m tired of preachers ruining movies for me by warning me of all the double entendres that I was happily unaware of. I’m tired of people telling me the intimate details of their encounters when such things are best enjoyed privately between two people. Sex is a small part of life, but most people focus on it unhealthily to the exclusion of all else, bringing up the subject all the time. Furthermore, we certainly do have a problem with some giving in to temptations to extramarital sex, divorce, rape, homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, and more. However, while sex is a small part of life, it is still a very important part of it. God created humans with the same basic physiology as other primates and clearly planned on us mating often. There is a certain minimum level of sexual awareness that allows us to be attracted to others in the first place and this awareness permeates every social situation. I know firsthand how abstinence can wear on a person and how torturous it sometimes is. We cannot fight sexual sins by fighting sex; we must do so by promoting the Christian marriage ideal and bringing people to Jesus. While not affecting as many people as promiscuity, abstinence is another evil that must be addressed. The human body and psyche is not designed for it, yet many people remain single for years until finally giving in to pornography or prostitution when they can’t take it anymore. It isn’t enough to simply tell people not to do wrong without giving them a way out because we are fighting against a powerful, God-given biological drive to be fruitful and multiply. If Christians really wanted to help these people, they would marry them. When people are starving, we don’t simply preach about the sins of theft. Instead we feed people and then train them how to become self-sufficient. Why don’t we do something similar with sex? Why don’t we offer matching services? We are so oversensitized to sex that we are quick to proscribe the harshest punishments for those who break the rules. Someone is accused of pedophilia or homosexuality and they are considered by the public guilty until proven innocent. Even teenagers can be convicted of a sex crime for urinating outdoors (something every guy (and several gals) I know has done at least once) or innocently suggesting that a ten-year-old take off her shirt (kids dare each other to do things all the time and are naturally curious about that which is normally kept hidden). Sex offenders are restricted in where they can live, what kind of jobs they can get, and in their internet use. All these things make it very difficult for them to find a spouse so they can finally enter into a healthy relationship and no longer be tempted. I’m not saying that their hardship in any way excuses recidivism, but so long as these hardships are placed on them by society, society should expect to be violated. We are so oversensitized to sex that we see it when it isn’t even there. When I read a news article about a man sucking women’s toes on a subway, I understood that he was weird and probably annoying but could not fathom why the police were calling it a sex crime. There is much that I find perfectly innocent that religious conservatives want to interpret as sexually deviant and make a big deal of. One has to admit that much of the increase in sexual deviancy in our culture might be an illusion and that talking so much about it only adds strife to the relationship of the church to the world it is trying to reach. I have heard of cases of possibly gay couples being asked not to return to church because they were seen holding hands, but in Saudi Arabia men hold hands all the time and the Muslims are less tolerant of homosexuality than we are. In France, one might greet another with a kiss rather than a handshake, but do this in America and you will be assaulted. Within America, so many people have different life experiences with subtly different cultural exposure that we can’t even agree on what is and isn’t a sexual signal. Is it possible that some see sex where it wasn’t intended and this is why we think the media is pushing it on us and our children even when they aren’t? I hear over and over that the media (especially advertising) sets a particular standard for feminine beauty that most cannot attain. This is only true if women take it that way. Just because a woman in an ad looks a particular way is no reason to expect that you have to. The problem is not the advertisers, but the attitude of the women at home viewing the ads. When it comes to sports, we celebrate talent without putting others down. When it comes to business, we pay extra for good talent. We celebrate musical, artistic, and scientific talent. Why then do we have such a hard time celebrating God-designed physical beauty? Should beautiful women be banned from advertising? Shouldn’t we instead share their beauty with the world to give glory to the one who created it? The problem is not only that Satan is using the media to push sexual sin on us; the problem is that we are so obsessed with sex that we see it everywhere and do Satan’s work for him. We fight sin but we still play by sin’s rules. I have heard it suggested that depicting Supergirl as a large-breasted woman sends the message that to be attractive one must have large breasts, making average women feel inadequate, yet no one suggests that Superman makes average men feel inadequate for lacking his large muscles or the ability to fly or fire heat rays from the eyes. Some women really do have large breasts and to put down Supergirl is to put down them as well. I have even heard of a case where a woman was told to cover up more than others because someone deemed her “too” attractive – but God made her that way! I hear about actresses and models being put down for being “too thin” and thus promoting unhealthy attitudes about food and how women are supposed to look – but some women are naturally thin and to put down the models is to put them down as well. God made them that way! The one biggest sexual symbol I hear talked about is nudity, but I have never thought of pure nudity as sexual. In fact, I have always believed that if we were all accustomed to experiencing nudity on a daily basis from birth onward, we would not and could not associate it with sex. If most people were naked most of the time, strip clubs would go right out of business. If you want to eradicate pornography, the obvious solution has been right there in Genesis 2:25 the whole time! As Christians, we are right with God and should feel no shame over that which is “fearfully and wonderfully made.” We instead have freedom to be what God created us to be and saw “was good.” What kind of world do we live in where the victims of clothing theft have to feel more ashamed than the thieves? This happens with no other kind of theft. What kind of world do we live in where I have to worry about a visit from the police for simply trying to keep cool on a hot day? We all have bodies and so every one of us is vulnerable and lives in constant fear. I have always believed that it is psychologically and sociologically unhealthy to both hide our bodies from others and to shield our eyes from the sight of others’ bodies. Do not call unclean what God has made clean! We live in an upside-down world where every sitcom can include dialogue implicitly and explicitly referring to sex (including perversions), bedroom scenes with characters writhing under the sheets, breast-grabbing, and scenes of kissing – and no one thinks anything of it, but if a mother breastfeeds her baby in public, we call for censorship! We want to battle the oversexualization of our culture, but we do so by attacking the human body. This is like banning airplanes because terrorists might use them, banning guns because criminals might use them, banning cars or alcohol because somebody might drive drunk, or banning soda because somebody might get fat. We especially go bananas over children seeing nudity, but no child in history has ever been hurt seeing nudity that wasn’t first taught that they were supposed to be hurt. We certainly aren’t born with the knowledge of the existence of clothes. I remember a case wherein a man was naked in his own home, not visible from the street or the neighbor’s homes, but only visible from one spot on the edge of his yard where a mother and daughter were walking by for some reason. The mother complained not that she was offended, but that her daughter was “having nightmares.” My thought was immediately that the mother must have filled her daughter’s mind with her own fears and prejudices and that this was child abuse! The man didn’t abuse anybody simply by being himself, but the mother did abuse her daughter by teaching her there was something so wrong with seeing bodies that they should always be covered. What kind of message does that send the daughter about her own body? No wonder we have eating disorders in America! Swimsuits make especially little sense to me. For me, by covering certain parts, they only bring special attention to those parts. To divert the focus, one should either be fully dressed or fully naked. Swimsuits represent a sort of reverse psychology. By conspicuously covering something, I notice things that could otherwise hide in plain sight. One might even think that swimsuits are designed to call special attention to the body. In fact, they are; swimsuit designers openly admit this! It annoys me that not only do I have to cover up, but I have to help perpetuate the idea that certain parts of the anatomy are sexually special by what I wear. This is a free speech issue. I do not want to be party to perpetuating such falsehoods. I do not think it appropriate to force others to discuss which parts they find most attractive. That’s a private thing. It is because sex is private that I reject the idea of covering special parts based on one person’s biased ideas of which parts are sexual. I don’t want to know what others consider the “sexual parts.” To be clear, I firmly believe that sex is a special, private thing shared between committed romantic partners not to be shared with others. When one is romantically entangled, they want to make the partner feel uniquely entitled to receive their affections. That’s what makes it romantic. I do not want to talk about my sex life, I don’t want to hear about the sex life of others, and I don’t find that romance or pornography make good entertainment. I dislike porn. It cheapens the sacred, but modern culture does this all the time and it isn’t even thought of as porn. Society praises those that dress up to show off the body and look pretty (and therefore sexually attractive) but puts down those that are pretty without dressing up. Putting in extra effort to dress (including makeup and jewelry) to attract a mate is just normal, but being oneself as God made them is somehow sexual and must be censored? Seriously? In America, people are even having sex even as young as Junior High. I agree that this is a problem, but why is this a problem? Did God err when he arranged for sexual feelings to enter the mind during puberty? Why would he have put those feelings there if he did not intend us to act on them in some way? In hunter-gatherer societies, members of the tribe are married off between the ages of 13 and 16. Their resulting children are watched by the whole tribe, sharing the burden. Social support is available to prevent divorce. The problem with Jr. High kids having sex is that in American society, we lack the social support structure to enforce commitment and it is nearly impossible to raise a family and make a living by hunting. We require so much education just to navigate our institutions and to get a decent job (and have laws against child labor and age restrictions on entering legal contracts) that it becomes extremely risky to get pregnant before 18 – even riskier if the father doesn’t stick around. Due to the instability of the economy many couples are putting off having children until much later in life. I find this very sad. The problem isn’t as much the sex, but the lack of love, commitment, and economic opportunity for the young. In conclusion, I see that the only way to fight those obsessed with promoting sex is not to become obsessed with fighting sex, but rather to stop being obsessed with sex at all. The deepest human drive is to commune with God. When God is put first, every lesser drive will fall into place. There are two observations I have made in life:
One: People are different. Two: People do not know that people are different. Not everyone expresses joy the same way. Some are naturally shy, quiet, laid back, or low-energy. Much can be said with silence. Often, at school pep rallies or singing in church, it is assumed that those with less visible enthusiasm are depressed or simply uninterested. They are pressured to conform to those with more visible energy, but to force oneself to conform only comes across as fake and awkward, and worse, it will prevent any true enthusiasm from ever forming. Why rob them of their joy? Not everyone grieves in the same way. Some throw themselves into work, others throw themselves into bed, and others make jokes. Sometimes a joke is exactly what one needs to keep from spiraling into despair. It’s not meant as disrespectful. Sometimes a party is exactly what one needs to forget that they lost the big game yesterday, shrugging it off and rising above the struggle so that they can win the next. Not only is it nobody’s business but theirs, but it isn’t even a bad thing. To make people feel guilty for wanting to feel good instead of bad will only make them feel worse. It doesn’t help. It will rob them of their grieving process. In the same way, trying to cheer up those who just need time to cry and think is to rob them of their healing process. When people are at their most vulnerable is when they hurt each other the most. One man’s friendly is another man’s creepy, and one man’s respectful is another man’s cold. There is a fine line between creepy and romantic, and whether the line has been crossed depends entirely on how the other person takes it. Some enjoy being surprised by love letters in their lunchboxes, but others are just freaked out that somebody had access to their belongings. It is possible to lose someone by going too fast or too slow and most people miss the clues that would tell which one it was. Even those that do learn only do so once it is too late and the lessons are completely inapplicable to the next relationship. Many of these differences are cultural. How close people stand, how long they maintain eye contact, and how soon they ask for or give away contact information can even differ substantially between members of the same community. There is no common agreement on these things, but most people believe there is and are quick to judge others for it. Sometimes what one person takes as bullying the bully only meant as playful teasing between friends and is unaware how they are perceived. Other times those bullied refuse to be victims and respond in kind, leaving the authorities unsure who started it. While sometimes we are too slow to stop bullying before it gets out of control, other times we are too quick to accuse someone of bullying, making them feel bullied. In all of these things there are different ways to be and different ways of doing things, but most people are only aware of their own ways. What weirdoes do you know? When were you accused of being a weirdo? One thing I have observed in life is that common sense isn’t very common. Most people have no sense of proportion or how things generally work. They have no feel for statistics. They are unable to generalize principles they learn in one subject to apply to another subject. Call yourself an authority, and they will believe everything you say uncritically. This is extremely dangerous in a democracy, where the people at large are ultimately in control. When the majority can be so easily manipulated into voting for bad candidates that will enact bad policies, we are all in danger.
Of course, I’m not the first to point this out; there are others who are quick to tell us that everything we have been taught is wrong and that they can be trusted to tell the truth. As often as not, these teachers are as deluded as everyone else. Below I give three examples of common beliefs that do not pass my “common sense test.” I know you have no reason to believe me. I can’t even be absolutely sure I’m right myself, since common sense is often wrong. I only ask that you read this post through, think things over, and accept that my opinions are genuine. The Great GMO Horror: There are people that have somehow picked up the idea that eating genetically modified organisms (GMOs) might make them sick, but if they had passed high school biology they would know better. Some people go so far as to claim that the modified genes in the GMO food will somehow get into our cells and give us drastic mutations. This is impossible. Food is broken down in the stomach and intestines. Starch is broken down into individual sugar molecules. Protein is broken down into individual amino acid molecules. DNA is broken down into individual nucleotides. Anything not broken down small enough to be absorbed by the intestine walls simply ends up in the toilet. It is these basic building blocks that our body’s DNA uses to make its own protein and DNA. With the genetic code of the food DNA broken down in the stomach into individual “letters,” the message is lost. There is no way to tell whether the DNA came from a GMO or a natural organism. Since natural DNA does not get into our cells, GMO DNA should not either. Thinking that eating GMOs will make you sick is no different than thinking that your paper shredder might jam on a document with a few misspelled words. Just as your paper shredder does not care what shape the ink stains are we call letters, your stomach does not care what genes your food had when it was swallowed. It is true that genes can alter a cell in which they are actually inserted – this is in fact why they are inserted, making a cow produce more milk or a cornstalk more resistant to locusts – but this should not affect the final food product in any way that might cause disease. A GMO animal is still made of protein, water, and fat like any other animal. A GMO plant is still made of protein, water, cellulose, and starch like any other plant. The DNA is made of the same four nitrogen bases. The only difference is in the sequence. Of course, genetics is very complex and sometimes a gene can cause different effects in different parts of the body. It is theoretically possible that a gene to increase milk production might also change the proportions of sugars and peptides in the milk, but a farm that wants to stay in business has an incentive to please the customer and will not sell milk that is fundamentally different. Even if the milk is a little different it is highly unlikely that it will be so different that it could make anyone sick. Given that humans are capable of digesting milk from different breeds of cattle, milk from goats, milk from sheep, fruit juice, wine, rice, eggs, lime jello, lobsters, calamari, escargot, haggis, and many other organic substances including their own boogers, there is no reason to worry. This is only common sense. If a cow with so many genes different that it is no longer a cow but a goat can still produce digestible milk, obviously a cow with only one gene different could. Because there is already a lot of natural genetic variation within species, and because humans are capable of digesting and absorbing so many different types of foods, there should be nothing so different about GMO foods that would make anyone sick. Another concern is environmental. What if fast-growing wheat escaped the farm and crowded out all other plants? This is the only arena that I see some legitimate concern, but we need to keep it all in perspective. Nature changes all the time. The idea that everything is balanced is mostly a myth. One natural plant will dominate for one decade and then another the next decade. A few GMOs escaping will be unlikely to be any worse. We also have to remember the alternative. In order to keep prices down for the consumer, farms have to use fertilizer and pesticides. Unnatural pesticides made up of artificial compounds that have never existed before in nature can have nasty environmental side effects and fertilizers can runoff during rainstorms and build up downstream. By slightly altering the nature of the plants through genetic manipulation, plants now naturally need less of either. Instead of fighting nature with artificial chemicals, we have harnessed nature to fight nature. GMOs are the natural alternative. All of this would be obvious to anyone with a basic high school education and a little bit of common sense, yet millions of people freak out whenever they suspect their food might have been genetically altered. Worse still, they vote. Responsible voters educate themselves before making conclusions on issues such as global warming, fracking, or gay conversion therapy, but most voters are far from responsible and are easily fooled by propaganda. Positive Ions: People keep telling me how modern technology creates positive ions that get into our bodies and make us sick, which is why they buy products that will produce negative ions to counter them. Or is it the other way around? Not even they can keep it straight. I ask them what type of ions they are talking about (Hydrogen? Oxygen? Zinc?) and they do not know. Having watched children’s educational programming on PBS when I was in elementary school, I know enough about ions to suspect that the issue is complete nonsense. For one thing, positive and negative ions are always created together. You can’t have one without the other. Often, they are produced by rubbing two different materials together. Which material ends up with a positive charge and which ends up with a negative charge depends on the materials used. Once created, the ions cannot be easily separated. Electromagnetism is a very strong force and it only takes a very few charged particles separated by a small distance before they will rush back together in the form of an electric discharge. Since electrons weigh roughly 1/2000th as much as protons, and protons are often bound to equally heavy neutrons, it is the electrons that move rather than the ions themselves. This is called static electricity. You don’t need to buy those silly ion bracelets because you can create ions just by walking on a carpet! Cell Phones: Cancer is known to be caused by a great many things. One of these is ionizing radiation. Alpha particles, beta particles, or electromagnetic energy of wavelengths shorter than that of visible light (i.e. ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays) can damage biological molecules, breaking them apart and altering their chemistry. Electromagnetic radiation of longer wavelengths such as radio and microwaves (what cell phones use) is not known to break molecules apart, nor is it known to cause cancer. What they can do in large amounts is produce heat, and people have suggested that cell phones heat nearby tissue thereby causing cancer. This is silly. Do you know what else can heat tissue? Wearing a hat, drinking soup, sitting next to the fireplace, or sitting in a hot tub can heat tissue. Why don’t we all have cancer? Those suggesting that mere heat can cause cancer seem to have lost all sense of proportion and perspective. Thinking that cell phones can cause cancer this way defies common sense. Conclusion: I’m far from perfect, but I find that I generally maintain a feeling for the overall system whenever I approach a new issue. This inoculates me from some of the more ridiculous conspiracy theories. When I saw a video of the trade towers collapsing that purported to show proof that they were brought down by explosives, my immediate thought was that the windows were blowing outwards because of compressed air. I understand that buildings are full of air and that when the upper floors fall, that air has to go somewhere. To me, everything went exactly as expected, no explosives necessary. Likewise, I understand that the act of planting the flag on the moon requires jerking it around and making it swing. This is not evidence of wind and therefore that the scene was actually staged on Earth. Rather, it is exactly what is to be expected. In fact, the presence of air would have the tendency to dampen any swings. That people are so quick to fall for these obvious tricks makes me think that they grew up in a world without air and only arrived on Earth yesterday. What happened to their life experience? Where is their common sense? Beware of propaganda. One thing I have observed in all my travels and reading is that a simple lie will travel farther and faster than a slightly more complex truth. Not only is a complex truth harder to remember correctly, it is harder to explain to others, harder to get others to want to understand, and harder still to get them to want to pass it on. This effect is what causes many people to believe incorrect things and make bad decisions. It is not that they want to lie (although that certainly occurs sometimes), or even know that what they are spreading is a lie, it is merely that simple ideas spread faster than complex ones, all other things being equal. Since the truth tends to be complex, or at least not maximally simple, it tends to be the lies that spread faster rather than the other way around.
Many of you have probably heard that cholesterol is bad for you, seeing as it can clog blood vessels, and should be cut out of the diet as much as possible. This is a simple lie. It is easy to advise another that cholesterol is bad, but much harder to explain all of the complex truth that is still being discovered by nutritionists today. The truth is that there are different types of cholesterol. Some are good and some are bad. The good ones are actually beneficial. At any rate, eating less of the bad cholesterol does no good, because the body just makes more to compensate. Finally, there is even dispute over what causes the cholesterol to stick to the arterial walls in the first place. Some have even suggested that it is preventing ruptures in diseased vessels, meaning that even bad cholesterol is really beneficial. We don’t really know. Many of you have most likely heard from others that they should wear a hat outside when it is cold because fifty percent of one’s escaping body heat is lost through the head. This helpful information influenced me to wear a hat sometimes when I might not have otherwise. Then, one day an idea struck me. I realized that the mouth and nose, through which much heat escapes in warm breath and both of which have high surface areas of thin, capillary-rich skin, are parts of the head. It is no wonder that so much heat escapes through the head! Of course, this means that wearing a hat is hardly a solution. When we rely on the advice of others, handed down to them by still others, information can be lost or distorted. Finding the original source of the information is ideal, but is often impossible. One has to wonder what else might not have been taken into account. Did they assume that other heat-losing parts such as feet, hands, and genitalia, would already be covered, and therefore not losing much heat? Did they assume that the person would be sitting still and not breathing much, or huffing and puffing after a jog? Maybe by jogging to keep warm, more heat is actually lost through breathing harder. Maybe it depends on air temperature, air pressure, oxygen content of the air, and the hemoglobin content of one’s blood. It could be that at not-as-cold temperatures it is better to walk, and only at extremely cold temperatures it is better to jog. Who knows? It is far too easy for someone in the chain of information transfer to have made a mistake, corrupting all the data from then on. One needs to be careful about what advice they follow. Then again, maybe I don’t have it quite right either. It could be that I took some slow-spreading, complex lies as the truth. Maybe the truth is even more complex than that. The wisest man is the one who knows that he knows nothing. What do you know? Science: Experiments often give contradictory results. Whether measuring the charge of an electron, the age of a piece of rock, or the effects of the South Beach Diet on health, every run of a test will give a slightly different answer. This is to be expected. Where the problem lies is in what the experimenters do with the results. Often, an experimenter has some prior expectation of about what the result should be (especially if the run in question is not the first). When the result comes up outside the expected parameters, the experimenter will check the apparatus carefully to make sure it is functioning, the samples to make sure they are pure, and the math to make sure it was done correctly. If a problem is found, the result is ignored and not published (makes sense so far). However, when a result comes up within the parameters they expect, nothing is checked for problems. Why would there be a problem? Everything came out as expected. When things go wrong, they look to see what went wrong, but when things go right, they don’t look to see what went right. This is an example of what is called a feedback or confirmation bias.
One may wonder how we can trust our scientific establishment because of this. Actually, the science community defends these actions. I once heard a science teacher state that because of peer-review processes and independent experiments by others, this form of bias is kept in check. After all, that is how science has been done for a long time – but this is no solution. The other experimenters are also biased, often towards the same objectives. Simply being scientists gives them too much in common to be truly independent. Living in the same society, or even on the same planet, or even belonging to the same species means that many ideas are potentially embraced by a majority of experimenters. Many ideas are very common, such as inflation theory, superstring theory, neo-Darwinian evolution, punctuated equilibrium, intelligent design, Freudianism, democracy, Islam, and communism. Those on the fringe that do not share these beliefs are likely to be ignored simply because they are in the minority. In this way, dominant theories dominate more and more in a feedback loop. In the world of ideas, the rich often get richer while the poor get poorer. The News: The same type of problem exists outside of formal science as well. How we conduct our lives is based on the same circular reasoning. We believe rumors if they seem to be consistent with what we already believe, which is also a bunch of rumors. Most of you have probably heard that we have a problem with frivolous lawsuits in the United States. Some of you may actually remember individual cases. A commonly known one is the suit against McDonald’s because some lady accidentally burned herself with McDonald’s coffee. Common people were upset that any judge would judge in favor of the plaintiff in such a case. McDonald’s was not to blame for her clumsiness. They were not surprised, however. Many had come to believe that the legal system was becoming more and more inane. Because they were already predisposed to believe that these types of cases were common, the story of this woman and McDonald’s was not doubted, and the facts were not checked. The story spread quickly and became commonly known. As it turns out, there is some dispute over what actually happened. According to one source, McDonald’s was only judged half responsible, and that was only because their coffee was kept at much higher temperatures than industry standards. It wasn’t just hot coffee; it was dangerously hot coffee. The point is that it is possible that many (or most) of the stories that we read about in the news and hear from friends are incomplete and misleading. The reason they are accepted as truth is because they are believed to be common, yet the reason they are believed to be common is because there are so many stories. The reason this is a problem is that some politicians have suggested reforming the judicial branch to deal with these lawsuits. Whether or not there really is a problem becomes an important factor in determining what actions to take to fix it, and fixing a problem that isn’t there may instead cause a bigger problem. A related disinformation problem is determining how common is too much. There will always be some abuses of our legal systems, but at what point can it be said that we have “a problem?” People assume that the stories they read about are just a small sample of what is out there, meaning the totality is much larger, but suppose that what we see is the totality of it. News agencies want to print interesting news to keep their customers. Juicy stories of frivolous lawsuits are a favorite. It could be that there is no major problem, but only that every single abuse that ever happens gets to every listener from reporters in the media and then also by word-of-mouth. This does not mean that all our common beliefs that we receive as rumor are false, but many of them might be. Feedback Spirals: If you are scientifically curious you may have wondered how scientists know how old various layers of rock are. They do some radiometric testing, but this is costly and difficult. Mostly, they check for fossils. If they see a fossil known to be from a certain era, they then know that the rock surrounding it is also that old. And how do they know what era a fossil is from? Usually they check the recorded age of the rock layer it is in. Wait a second, isn’t that circular reasoning? That’s what young-earth creationists claim. In fact, this is one of their main talking points they use to convince people that evolution theory is in error, and the evolutionists do not deny that they engage in this practice! Rather, they claim that instead of a feedback loop, it is more like a feedback spiral. Those fossils first discovered had their surrounding rocks tested radiometrically. The estimated rate of sedimentation and other clues corroborated these dates. It was only then, that rather than go through the lengthy and expensive procedure of radiometric testing, scientists began to determine the ages of fossils by the known ages of the rock they were found in, according to earlier tests. This repeated activity built up a database of known fossil ages, which were in turn used to determine rock strata ages that had yet to be tested. To further clarify: suppose that it was found early on that trilobite fossils were only found in rock strata from a specific, narrow span of time. Then, anytime someone found a new layer of rock with a trilobite fossil in it, they would assume that the rock was also from this time span. The young-earth creationists, of course, point out that the number of trilobite fossils collected during the early days of paleontology may have been too small, statistically speaking, to rule out their prevalence elsewhere. If a large percentage of trilobite fossils exist outside the range assigned to them, the rock strata dates derived from them would then be horribly flawed. The flawed rock dates would then corrupt the fossil dates derived from them, which would in turn corrupt the rock dates derived from those fossils, and so on. In fact, young-earth creationists even point out that some trilobite fossils have been found over (and therefore in younger strata than) dinosaur fossils (which were supposed to have evolved later). These rare events are easily explained away by evolutionists as folding and overturning of the crust, which is agreed by all to happen sometimes. The disagreement is over whether it happened in those specific instances. It wouldn’t even take very many out-of-place trilobite fossils to screw up the whole system. If just one is slightly above its prescribed zone, it would give that rock layer a slightly older date, in turn giving all fossils in that layer a slightly older date. If every group of fossils overlaps slightly with every other group, it could be theoretically possible to assign all fossils to the age of trilobites. Of course, with various cross-checks this is highly unlikely in a complete and rich enough fossil record. However, nowhere on Earth can the entire fossil record column be found. It has been pieced together from different places. Add into this mix the tendency to doubt one’s individual dating results and look for any explanation to discredit them rather than doubt the whole theory, and a potent combination has been made in which confirmation bias can flourish. It would seem that “feedback spirals” can very easily fall into the trap of circular reasoning, making them feedback loops after all. Wisdom: Nevertheless, despite this tendency we cannot assume that this feedback spiral has degenerated into a loop, or that one hundred and fifty-eight years of well-established evolutionary theory are wrong. When they have a proper foundation, feedback spirals are legitimate constructs. I don’t know what to think. I wasn’t around during creation to see how God did it or how long he took. Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old? Quite possibly. I just want to open minds to understand how unsure the intellectual elites really are about everything. The same principles apply to nutrition, the environment, and economics. The wisest man is the one who knows that he knows nothing. What do you know? One thing I have observed in life is that when two people look at the same set of data, they can sometimes reach very different conclusions. Some people see patterns that aren’t there and others don’t see patterns that are there. This is sometimes called patternicity or apophenia.
I will give you an example that occurred often in 2004. The church I went to then had time set aside to allow the different members to speak up front if they had something to say. Every week, several different people shared a verse, a song, a testimony, or a brief message. It was not known ahead of time who would speak or what they would say. After the service, I often heard from my friends that they saw a clear pattern in what was shared. Even though there was no collusion on the part of the members, the songs, verses, testimonies, and messages all covered the same subject to give an overall message for the day. They used the existence of this pattern as proof that God was involved. Now, I am not suggesting that God never gets involved in arranging messages, but I just don’t see the same pattern that they do. First of all, since it is a “church gathering,” subjects such as love, God, Jesus, and prayer are bound to come up quite often. It is impossible not to find a pattern of those subjects being covered every week. Yet, they saw some significance to it. It isn’t just the broad subjects that they claimed. Since every subject relates to many others (including those only barely touched upon) and every message of any significant length covers very many subjects, it is no wonder that some of these lesser subjects match. In fact, it is possible to claim in all truthfulness any subject in the universe as a secondary subject of any message. Suppose I gave a speech on crocodiles. I might briefly mention a study on genes giving insights into reptilian evolution, but only as a minor footnote. Another person might then give a speech on the invention of the pencil sharpener. They might mention the composition of pencils, but only as a minor footnote. If my friends were in the audience they would see a link: we both talk about chemistry. I would have covered indirectly the subject of DNA, and the second person would have mentioned the substances of lead and graphite. One can pull any pattern out of those two subjects! One could claim that they both cover safety around sharp objects or that they both cover the world of non-humans (if they are used to hearing only speeches on health and social sciences). Although I disagree with them, I am not calling my friends stupid; these are intelligent, respectable people (mostly). These types of errors are easy to make. In fact, greater intelligence makes it easier to find patterns or infer patterns from incomplete data. I draw a parallel with optical illusions (no pun intended). The better one can see, the easier it is to see what isn’t there. I see this same problem all the time. Looking at the same data, some people see clear evidence for global warming and others do not. Looking at the same evidence in a trial, some people see clear evidence of guilt and others do not. This is a source of a lot of conflict. I don’t always know the truth for sure myself, but sometimes I can be very sure that neither does anyone else. It still amazes me how confident people can be in things they know nothing about. There is of course, another possibility. Since the probability of occurrence of each subject is very tricky to quantify and measure, it could be that I am the one who is mistaken. Perhaps the pattern is significant after all. I haven’t been able to check it out mathematically. All the statistical number crunching happens in our subconscious, so I couldn’t tell you where to begin looking for errors. I would be very interested to find out what causes this phenomenon so we can fix this problem that leads to conflict and poor decision-making. Also, this phenomenon is hard to explain. I tried to use an example above about pencil sharpeners and crocodiles, but if one actually does see the chemistry connection I described, how can I then convince them that there is no connection and use that to then explain the problem at church? The example at church suffices for me, but not for my church friends, so why would the crocodile-sharpener example make things any clearer? I think that the more examples used, the chances that none of them will work gets smaller and smaller. What do you think? What causes us to see patterns differently? What can we do about it? A common thread running through my life is that I am able to see all points of view in ways that others cannot. My father and a friend of his used to argue for hours every time they visited over the role of free will in sin and salvation. His friend was a solid Calvinist and would cite scriptures that seemed to suggest God elected ahead of time only a few for salvation, but on closer reading were actually compatible with either Calvinism or Arminianism. My father, while not officially claiming a position, would cite other scriptures that he claimed proved beyond all doubt that God was not willing that any perish.
Calvinism and Arminianism: Simply put, Calvinism is the belief that God decided ahead of time who would be rescued from sin and who would be destined for Hell. Free will has no role. Those damned can do nothing to receive God’s favor, and those saved can do nothing to resist their spiritual growth. Simply put, Arminianism is the belief that each individual chooses whether to sin and whether to accept salvation. God is powerless to interfere. Those going to Hell willingly embrace it. Both Calvinism and Arminianism have been used as excuses not to reach out to sinners. Proximate and Distal Causes: It all seemed so silly to me. It was obvious that my actions were the results of choices I made myself, yet I understood that I had reasons for making these choices, meaning those reasons were deterministic. Every event has proximate and distal causes. When Harry kills Scott, what is it that actually kills Scott? The bullet? The gun that sent the bullet? Harry, who pulled the trigger? Sam, who told Harry that Scott was sleeping with his wife and planned on killing him first? Scott, for divulging his plans to Sam? The gun manufacturer, without which there would have been no gun in Harry’s hand? The inventor of gunpowder? Or is it God, without which the chemistry of gunpowder would not exist, Harry would not exist, Scott would not exist, life would not exist, and therefore death itself would not exist? Every one of these explanations is equally valid, depending on the context and the behavior you want changed. If Scott realizes that every time he tells Sam a secret, somebody comes gunning for him, he may legitimately see telling Sam secrets as the cause of his problems. It is equally correct to say that Sally buys a new car and that Julie sold Sally a new car. This way, Sally’s husband can give Sally credit for buying him the best birthday present ever, and Julie’s boss can give Julie credit for selling more cars than any other employee. Both are right. In the same way, we sin by choice and accept salvation by choice, but in a way that God arranged for ahead of time like a master salesman. Calvinism and Arminianism are equally true and not incompatible with each other at all! Mental Parasites: Every time I explain this, people look at me as if I have five heads. They cannot understand what is painfully simple and obvious to me. The same thing happens with talk of memetics. People balk at the idea that our actions are controlled by sets of ideas that are passed from one person to another like viruses or parasites. They say that it leaves no room for free will. Horsefeathers! Is it us or our memes that are responsible for our actions? The answer, of course, is both. Consider the conversation between two chess players below: Doug: So is it me or my memes that are responsible for my behavior? Rich: You are responsible for what your behavior is, but your memes are responsible for what you are. Doug: What does that mean? I am the way I am because of me. If I stand up or sit down or move my rook to put you in check at this moment, it is because I choose to, not because I’ve been programmed to. Rich: Oh absolutely, I agree one hundred percent that you have chosen to put me in check, but why? You must have some reason. Doug: Of course I have a reason! I want to win. Rich: So would you say you have a belief that using your rook to put me in check is one way to win? My knight just blocked you by the way. Doug: Look, I put a lot of hard work into studying different chess strategies; I saw this one used last year. Your knight is gone now. Rich: So you got the strategy idea from someone else? You mean there was an idea that passed from one person to another by imitation or communication? You mean that the reason you moved your rook was because of a meme? Doug: Fine, I have a strategy-meme in my mind, so what? It doesn’t control me; I do what I want, not my memes, as if they can even have any desires of their own. I could just as easily have chosen to do otherwise. Rich: Yes you could have, but then you would have been acting on different beliefs, goals, and strategies. Those are all memes, ideas that are passed from one person to another. Doug: I could have just as easily done something random. Rich: Sure, but why? To prove that you are in control because you have the belief-meme that you must convince me you are? Doug: That’s not why… Rich: Why then? You must have some reason, and whatever reason it is, it is based on your goals and beliefs. Of course you still have free will; you are free to choose anything – except that which you do not want to do (meaning that which is against your goals), and that which you do not realize is possible (meaning that which is not contained in your beliefs). Doug: Fine, I do things because of my ideas – but I have many ideas. I must choose between them. Rich: Of course, but why do you choose some over others? It is because of all the other ideas in your mind. Memes all interact in complex ways and we are still learning just how they do that. The concepts of personal choice and memetic natural selection are not incompatible; they are merely different perspectives to help us gain insights that we could not by sticking with only one model. Doug: Alright, you win; I am controlled by my ideas, but they are my ideas, nobody else’s. They are still my ideas! Some ideas I might get from others, but most of them I come up with on my own. For example, I know of no chess strategy that applies to the configuration our pieces are now in, so I will make up my own and move my queen … here. Rich: That’s not a bad move; my bishop is now trapped. Still, whenever one creates new ideas, or invents new things, they are simply combining ideas they already have in new ways. You must have combined your knowledge of how the queen functions in chess with your desire to win and several other ideas to have created your strategy. Doug: Well, I suppose so, but those aren’t memes. Those are new ideas. Check. Rich: Those ideas came out of memes, and if you pass them to another they will become memes too. Memes spawn new memes all the time either through mutation or through interaction with other memes. It’s called memetic evolution. Doug: Isn’t this a dangerous way to think, though? If people were told that they are simply acting on their memes, wouldn’t society break down as people lost the concept of personal accountability? Rich: Some might misunderstand I suppose, which is why studying how ideas spread to prevent that is so important. For the most part though, people will still behave decently. They may do so because they have a meme that makes them fear reprisal, or they may do so because they have a meme that makes them genuinely care for others. I fail to see why knowing where one’s actions truly come from would make any difference. Like I said before, you are responsible for your behavior, but your memes are responsible for you. Checkmate. Hopefully that clears up some unnecessary debate. Free will and determinism are not enemies! Sometime between 2000 and 2003 I became fascinated in psychology and sociology and read much on the subjects. This has lead to many musings and observations over the years. I had always been interested in how people acquire ideas, especially beliefs, and how it was that different people could come to different conclusions. One branch of sociology that captured my imagination more than any other was memetics.
Memetics is the branch of sociology that deals with the study of memes. The theory of memetics states that meaning comes in discrete quanta upon which a Darwinian algorithm may act. Cultural institutions, knowledge, and the like are made up of ideas called memes. These memes are passed from one person to another by both communication and imitation and so spread through society. Some memes are more likely to be transmitted than others. Sometimes it is because passing on the idea gives some benefit to the transmitter (e.g. makes them look smart, makes people like them, makes people buy their products). Sometimes it is because the meme is more readily noticed to the receiver (e.g. promises higher income, warns them of danger, promises better sex). Sometimes it is because simpler memes are easier to remember, and fewer errors are made in transmission. Whatever the reason, some memes become common and others go “extinct”. It is said that those memes were “selected” against. Often, when a misunderstanding occurs in transmission, it is said that a “mutation” happens, creating a new meme. This new meme may be either more likely or less likely to spread, depending on its nature. Over time, a group of many interrelated memes (called a memeplex), such as a culture or a language, may evolve through this mutation and selection process. This is why many use the story of genetic evolution to help explain memetic evolution. Memes and Genes: Genes are inherited directly from parents. With the exception of mutations, the genes of the offspring are identical copies of the genes of the parents. Memes, on the other hand are not transmitted directly. A potential host must observe the current host’s behavior to “reverse-engineer” the meme in his own mind. When different memes cause the same behavior, the underlying memes may not be the same. Genes come from only two parents (or one in some species) and deliver their genes at conception. Memes can come from anybody at any stage of life. Genes have copies of themselves in every cell. To learn the genetic makeup of an individual, one need only take one cell. For nearly all types of organisms, this observation will not cause any harm and will certainly not alter the genetic makeup (single-celled organisms are an exception). To learn the memetic makeup of an individual, one cannot choose from billions of copies; there aren’t any. Any questioning, scanning, or “dissection” of the mind will affect what is there. The act of observing alters the memetic makeup. This is why study by observing behaviors and artifacts is preferred. Memes compete for resources (records and human memory) and so only some survive. Accents cannot be transmitted by being carved in stone. Practices deemed private will not be discussed and will die out in the individual that holds them. Some practices are simply inferior to others and are forgotten in favor of others. Some memes are spread almost exclusively from parent to child. Upbringing makes a huge difference to the way people turn out later in life. Smokers tend to spawn smokers. Children tend to be of the same religion as their parents. These memes prosper by encouraging the one who holds the meme to have as many children as possible. Taboos against birth control may be just such an example of this. In theory, those who shun birth control have more kids, and therefore more become carriers of the taboo. Over time, those with the taboo should outnumber those that do not. Benefits of The Paradigm: Memetics can yield useful insights that more conventional viewpoints that focus on the motives of individuals and groups cannot. One notable parallel that can be drawn is that between insecticides and censorship. Insecticides are used to kill certain types of insects, and keep them from spreading. Censorship does much the same thing to certain types of ideas. The point is to keep them from spreading. Unfortunately, there is a downside to using too much insecticide. Because of variation within the insect population, some insects are more resistant to insecticide than others. These resistant variants will invariably be the ones that escape the effects of the insecticide and continue to reproduce and spread. Then, because they are no longer competing with resources with their less resistant brethren (they are all dead, thanks to the farmer), the resistant variants now easily dominate, replenishing the numbers of the entire insect population in the next generation. If less insecticide or less potent insecticide was used, these resistant variants would never dominate over the others, and the insecticides would continue to be useful. This is how insecticides create “superbugs” (a similar phenomenon occurs with bacteria and antibiotics). In the same way, censorship, if too strict or far-reaching, can generate “superideas” by killing (halting the spread of) the less virulent ideas, leaving only the strongest and most censorship-resistant ideas to dominate. If the censorship were applied more gently, it would still have retained its usefulness. It is believed by many that this is one of the reasons that religions often flourish secretly in those countries where practitioners of said religions are heavily persecuted. This effect would have been very easy to miss by one not using the memetic approach. It is a great paradigm. Criticisms: There are many criticisms of memetics. One is that it has yet to make testable predictions. Culture is so complex that it cannot be known ahead of time which memetic effects will be strongest and so which memes will win. Whatever happens, it is compatible with the theory. Another problem is that cultural evolution may have a property known as high-sensitivity to initial conditions. This means that very small changes now can yield enormous changes in the future. Since it is impossible to know the exact state of every mind in the community in perfect detail, predictions will become exponentially inaccurate with time. This is the same reason that weather can’t be forecast accurately more than a week into the future. Feedback is also a problem if the scientists are themselves part of the same system they study. There is also the phenomenon of individual learning, as opposed to receiving information from others. It is not always clear how much individual learning there is in the system to compete with the memetic effects, and this must be taken into account. Another criticism that has been raised against memetics is the possibility that “blending” may occur between memes sometimes. When learning a language, does one adopt the accent for a particular sound most often heard by the individual in question, or does one blend the sounds together, creating a unique sound? While it is obvious that larger memeplexes such as accents blend by mixing and matching individual memes, it is generally thought that the individual memes themselves are fundamental units of information that cannot blend; one must adopt either one or another. Now, however, it is being questioned whether a such thing as fundamental units of contextual information (meaning) exist. At first glance, it would seem that there is no real cause for concern; the phenomenon of meme-blending should not kill memetics any more than the phenomenon of incomplete dominance should kill genetics. However, there is a difference: during incomplete dominance, the underlying genotype remains unchanged and one or both alleles may be passed on to the offspring. With meme-blending on the other hand, the original memes are lost and reverse-engineered, creating a brand new meme. It would be as if the offspring of someone with strawberry-blonde hair also had strawberry-blonde hair by reverse-engineering up some genes for strawberry-blondeness, rather than inheriting either a redhead gene or a blonde gene to combine with a gene from the other parent. Memetics may still be model worth using, though. If meme-blending happens infrequently or not at all, it can be considered mere statistical noise. The one thing that is clear is that much more study is needed. Please discuss. I am a writer and an artist. Creativity drives me. It is what makes life worth living and it comes to me as naturally as does breathing. I couldn’t stop if I wanted to. I want to express myself not only because I’m in love with myself, but so that I can entertain others and raise their spirits as well. Creating art is an act of love. I also celebrate the creativity of others. I love art, music, comedy, and fiction. Not everything is to my tastes, but I always appreciate it when someone puts in an effort to make something unique. The world is rich with fascinatingly complex and beautiful sights, sounds, and tastes and I want everyone to have the opportunity to enjoy them. Producing art is fundamentally human and every human is at least somewhat creative. Enjoying and consuming art requires a creative mind to appreciate it. I am able to celebrate art I did not create by bringing my own interpretation to it. This requires creativity. Learning, understanding, and exploring are also fundamentally human. To be trapped in one place crushes the human spirit. I love to broaden my mind, so it sickens and saddens me when some people reject knowledge out of fear, remaining in ignorance and squalor. They continue to reject my help, but my love of truth and knowledge will not allow me to stop reaching out.
My love for creativity also extends to scientific speculation and theories. I don’t have to believe that everything I read is true to enjoy reading about it. I once got a book out of the library called The Dinosaur Heresies. It suggested, among other things, that the dinosaurs were warm-blooded and presented evidence to support the idea. This has since become mainstream thinking. I got another book out of the library called The Big Bang Never Happened. It suggested that we live in an infinitely old, hyperbolic spacetime and that quasars are magnetic plasma foci rather than black hole accretion disks. I have always been more interested in learning the basics of every school of thought on a subject than in learning any one worldview in great detail. I am attracted to heresies. I collect them. I find them irresistible – not because I want to rebel against “authority” – but simply because I love ideas. My love of ideas also includes descriptions of alternate cultures and new ways to order our institutions. I don’t have to agree that all propositions are good ideas to want to learn about them. Learning is an end in itself. I derive pleasure from mulling over the possibilities of different forms of government. Reading only that which I already agree with is boring. I crave new ideas that I have never heard before. The fact that I might not agree with an author is all the more reason to read his/her work. It intrigues me to think there might be some merit to the arguments. I like to be surprised. Rarely does anyone change my mind, but I also read for reconnaissance purposes. Reading the work of my political/intellectual opponents informs me of the rhetorical devices they use so I better know how to formulate my own arguments to defeat them. How can I win anyone over to my side if I remain uninformed? I want to hear from those I disagree with. I want Nazis, communists, and scientologists to be able to have their say. It helps me to refine my thinking and better understand what I don’t believe and why I don’t believe it. In fact, the vast majority of the things I have come to believe I arrived at by first hearing someone actually attempt to make a case for the opposite. Things are often known by their contrary. I want people to speak up. This is why it hurts so much when I hear people being shouted down and threatened with violence merely for making a few points. It is not only scary for those speaking and disappointing for those of us that want to hear them, but I also find it very very sad. The protestors hurt themselves most of all. They miss out. Ironically, it is colleges where the most extreme forms of speech suppression take place. Colleges are at least nominally institutions of knowledge and learning, but I am finding this description harder to believe all the time. Even more ironically, it is the students who prevent those they don’t like from speaking. Why do they (or their parents) spend so much on education if they refuse to learn? It doesn’t make sense. There is so much agitation out there now that colleges are insisting that visiting speakers (or those that invite them) pay for the extra security. Thus, the rich get their points across while the poor remain unheard. Why can’t the college pay for security? What do they do with all that tuition money? Many colleges are subsidized by state governments. Why can’t the state pay for it? Since college students will be the next generation of leaders that will run our institutions when we retire, it hurts all of us when they remain uneducated. Church is another place where free thought is often discouraged. One would think that God would want us to learn. Why else did he give us brains? Strangely, churches actually encourage learning if it is to draw you away from anti-church ideas, but once they have you inside you will often be told that any doubts are a symptom of sin that will expel you from God’s favor. Hypocrites! There are many reasons to support freedom of speech. When speech is suppressed, those with unpopular views do not simply go away. Instead they communicate with each other in secret and become increasingly desperate to be heard. Some resort to terrorism when they have no other option. When questioning established doctrine is prohibited, it causes even reasonable people to wonder what the authorities have to hide and whether they are covering something up. Conspiracy theories thrive on secrecy. Besides, the only way to know whether someone is worth listening to is to first listen to them. There is no way to know what they will say until they say it. If you don’t know what they’re going to say, you can’t know that it will be false. If they fail to convince you, no harm is done – and if they do convince you, doesn’t that mean you learned something? Isn’t that good? Don’t you want the best information you can get? What are you so afraid of? Why stay stupid? On the other hand, if they are only repeating what they have already said, no further harm can come of it. What they have said is already part of the public domain and cannot be unheard. They are hurting no one. Let them continue. When those in power are uneducated, we all suffer. In a democracy, this means the voters and this is why widespread ignorance is so dangerous. Suppressing speech kills democracy. When a tyrant controls what you hear, you may not even know you live in a tyranny. Knowledge is power and ignorance is enslavement. Of all people, it is students, artists, writers, and performers that should be most wary of enslavement because it cuts to the very soul of what learning and art are all about – freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom itself. Why then, do so many of them try to shut people up? Any artist who does not support allowing those of unpopular views to speak is no artist at all and lacks the very thing that makes us human – the creative drive. They are something less than animals. It makes me wonder: Since they aren’t human, is it morally permissible to hunt them for food? Something I’ve learned in my travels and reading is that while common sense can be helpful, sometimes it has been shown wrong by modern science.
Objects fall down. The Earth is spherical and objects do not fall down. Rather, they fall towards the Earth even when they are on its underside. If we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. At least ninety percent of the matter making up galaxies is invisible, known only from its gravitational effects. Solid matter is full. Solid matter is mostly empty space. Atoms are made of incredibly tiny nuclei surrounded by vast clouds of electrons with nothing in between. Empty space is empty. Empty space is full of matter. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence in accordance with quantum uncertainty principles. This is how forces are mediated and quantum tunneling is made possible. My time is your time. Time runs at different rates for different objects. Objects travelling near the speed of light barely experience time at all. Everything has a defined position. Waves are particles. Particles are waves. An individual electron can pass through two slits at once and interfere with itself in order to hit a detection screen where a particle moving in a straight line could not reach. Eating fat makes you fat. Eating fat does not make you fat. Eating more calories than you use makes you fat, whether those calories are from fat, oil, protein, sugar, starch, or alcohol. The human body is perfectly capable of taking unused energy in any form and storing it as fat molecules. A one-degree increase in temperature over the course of a century can’t hurt us. Just because the ecosystem can survive swings of thirty degrees or more from day to night or from summer to winter, it does not mean that a rise of one degree in the global average is not a problem. Increased temperature over many years has a cumulative effect and it is not so much the temperature that is the problem so much as the total amount of heat energy in the system. This energy can then turn into other forms, causing higher wind speeds, moving a larger volume of moisture around to cause increased rainfall, or melting the icecaps and causing the oceans to rise. The more energy that goes into breaking the hydrogen bonds in the ice and turning it into a liquid, the less that can go into raising the temperature of the air. Just because something makes sense, doesn’t mean it’s true. Just because something doesn’t make sense, doesn’t mean it’s false. Common sense is not always right. Please comment. True FriendshipOne thing I’ve observed in life is what makes for satisfying companionship. To connect with others is a fundamental emotional need very rarely met and impossible to do over the internet. Don’t misunderstand, I’m not trying to take anyone’s internet relationships away. For some people, this is all they have and it is much better than nothing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having internet friends; it is only that they can never fully make up for a lack of friendship in the real world. These are my observations: Text is not enough. To really connect with someone I have to see them in three dimensions, in motion, responding in real time to my actions. I savor every involuntary scrunching of the eyebrows right at the punchline of my jokes. Through this I gain a better understanding of their thought processes than mere words could ever convey. Of course, this could be done through a video call, but meeting someone in person is better. Meeting someone in person demonstrates you care enough about them to go out of your way. It is not the time to spend texting everyone else who isn’t there. If those other people need your attention, they should have come. It is unfair to ignore the one who went out of her way for you. Divided attention is not only distracting to the one engaged in the activity, but also to those attempting to communicate to him. Meeting someone in person builds trust. They at least know that you really do live in the area and are not lying about your looks. They also know that their secrets are only being heard by one person rather than remaining in text form in someone’s computer forever. True friendship requires your time. When I was in junior high school, I spent three hours a day six days a week with the same guy. It was simply a given that I would run down the hill to his house after school and play. We never had to wonder whether we would be bored or lonely that day. I always assumed that when we grew up we would live in the same house or own/work for the same business. My ideal life was for us to live together in a spaceship and explore the galaxy, but I don’t think that will happen. As adults, our lives are full of necessary chores and employment taking up most of our time, but if you aren’t spending at least six hours a week with someone it calls into question whether you are really friends. An objection I have heard raised to this point is that there might be months or years that you do not see someone, but with good friends you are always able to pick up where you left off. This is true, but it only applies to those you are already good friends with. If you hardly ever see someone, it is impossible to become friends in the first place. True friendship requires having the same basic outlook on life. You must have the same worldview. This does not mean agreeing on everything. For example, two people can disagree on global warming and each bring evidence to support their side and remain friends. However, if one of them doesn’t even believe in evidence, makes no effort to defend her opinion, and relies solely on intuition, every conversation they ever have on any subject will be incredibly awkward. True friendship requires that you not be enemies. It sounds obvious, but people often don’t seem to get it. Stealing from or physically injuring me is only one step away from ordering others to do it, which is in turn only one step away from electing candidates that will order others to do it. Those who spew hatred and preach prosecution of those that live differently from them always make me uncomfortable – even if they don’t vote. I understand that people often vote for one candidate only to defeat another even worse one, and I understand that others either aren’t as well informed as I or else I am not as well informed as them, so I am not quick to reject someone just because they vote differently. My problem is with people who have a fundamentally different notion of what constitutes self-defense. If they think it right to steal from me by using violence and I think it right to prevent such theft by using violence, I feel like I have to constantly watch my back around them. I can never relax. There have been people I almost immediately “click” with and many more that I do not. I need someone who can laugh and not take everything so seriously. I need someone who I can synchronize a work flow with so that he is not always in my way and I in his. I need someone that will not stupidly misunderstand everything I say, including my attempts to correct the misunderstanding. I need someone who will automatically understand the intent behind my words, understanding not only the content but why it is that I bothered to say anything. I need someone who will know what I’m getting at without me having to spell it out. I need someone that will look in the direction I’m pointing instead of in the opposite direction (yes, this has happened). I need someone I can share my secrets and dreams with. I need someone who wants to travel, explore, and learn with me. Maybe I’m asking for too much, but without these things I know from experience that I will be deeply lonely. I have met people like this before, so I know they exist, but it has been years since they were a part of my life. Some of them became really busy in work, or found other friends, or got into drugs. Some of them started families that tied them down. Some of them changed and became enemies. Some won’t talk to me. Others I have lost contact with and have no idea if they are even still alive. I’m still waiting to meet the next true friend. While everyone has different tastes and emotional needs, and it is not my place to tell others what they should want, there are certain things that I know I will never be satisfied without and this is what I define as true friendship. True RomanceWhile it has been a long time since I’ve had a friend, I’ve never come anywhere near finding romance. The first and most important attribute I look for in a romantic partner is that we either are or can be true friends. Everything that I look for in a friend I also look for in a romantic partner. If I can’t be friends with you, there is no possible way I can be romantic. You are better off with someone else.
Romance isn’t only about what I get out of it, but about what I can give. There is not much that brings me greater joy than to help another person and see someone I love prosper. I am willing to make sacrifices. I get a lot out of giving, but if I can’t even give, I get nothing. If I feel that I have nothing to offer that you don’t already have or if I get the feeling that you only put up with me so you won’t be seen alone in public, I will lose whatever interest I might have initially had. We must be complimentary in some way, making each other complete. This complimentarity is especially poignant when it comes to creating life and all romance is by its very nature inherently heterosexual. There is little that compares to teaching another person all about the world that they are new to. To share and raise children with someone as a team is incredibly romantic. I understand the desire to wait, but sexual partners not ever open to having kids (biological or adopted) are not engaging in true romance. Romance requires emotional intimacy and physical intimacy, including sexual intimacy. Humans need intimacy. It is a fundamental emotional need. This requires physical contact. Pheromones do not travel through phone lines. However, intimacy cannot be rushed, or it will create discomfort and prevent true intimacy from ever occurring. One must ease into it gradually. While everyone has different tastes and emotional needs, and it is not my place to tell others what they should want, there are certain things that I know I will never be satisfied without and this is what I define as true romance. Of course, anything is better than nothing and I never turn anyone away. I meet people where they are in life and appreciate whatever good I can find in them without dwelling on the bad. I am always giving people more chances; I just wish they would do the same for me. Please comment. |
AuthorMy name is Dan. I am an author, artist, explorer, and contemplator of subjects large and small. Archives
February 2023
Categories
All
|